city of oakland budget advisory commission · 7/10/2019 · notice is hereby given that a meeting...

NoticeisherebygiventhatameetingoftheCityofOaklandBudgetAdvisoryCommission(BAC)isscheduledforWednesday,July10,2019at6:00pminHearingRoom4,CityHall,2ndFloor,at1FrankOgawaPlaza.

CommissionMembers:LoriAndrus,JayAshford,KenBenson,EdGerber,TravisGeorge,GeoffreyJohnson,SarahLee,VincentLeung,KasheicaMckinney,CaitlinPrendiville,DarinRanahan,

BrendaRoberts,MarchonTatmon,AdamVandeWater,&DannyWan

City'sRepresentative:BradJohnson–FinanceDepartment

MeetingAgenda:1. AdministrativeMatters

i. Welcome&Attendance2. ReviewandRecapoftheFinalAdoptedFY2019‐21Budget.[30minutes]

3. ReviewofQuestionsansweredduringthebudgetprocess.[5minutes]

4. CreationofAd‐HocgroupsfortheSeptemberBudgetAdvisoryCommissionReportto

theCityCouncil[25minutes]5. SeptemberBACMeetingDates[15minutes]

6. OpenForum

7. Adjournment

CITYOFOAKLANDBUDGETADVISORYCOMMISSION

Exhibit 1

Page 1 of 1

ALL OTHER FUNDS FTE FY 2019-20Incr / (Reduc)

FY 2020-21Incr / (Reduc)

Significant Revenue Changes (continued)

Increase allocated funds for affordable housing projects within the Measure KK: Affordable Housing Bond Fund (5331)

$15.00

Significant Expenditure Changes (continued)

OAKALND PARKS, RECREATION, & YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Delete 0.75 FTE Facility Security Assistant, PPT & 0.25 FTE Facility Security Assistant, PT and Add 1.0 FTE Facility Security Assistant in the Self Sustaining Revolving Fund 1820

- $0.00 $0.00

Delete 1.0 FTE Recreation Specialist II, PPT and Add 1.0 FTE Recreation Program Director in the Self Sustaining Revolving Fund 1820

- $0.00 $0.00

Delete 1.0 FTE Recreation Specialist II, PPT & O&M and Add 1.0 FTE Recreation Program Director in SBBT Fund (1030).

- $0.00 $0.00

HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTIncrease allocated funds for affordable housing projects within the Measure KK: Affordable Housing Bond Fund (5331)

$15.00

Budget Adjustments -- Errata No. 1($ in million)

Exhibit 2

Item # Fund Dept. Description FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total Notes

1 1010 Finance Increased revenue from sales tax 564,885 - 564,885 578,129 - 578,129

1a 1010 Finance Increase sales tax revenue 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000

2 1010 Finance Increase transient occupancy tax 1,288,099 - 1,288,099 1,356,187 - 1,356,187

2a 1010 Finance Increase transient occupancy tax 19,650 19,650 19,650 19,650 This reflects 78.6% of $25k per year. Rest goes to Fund 2419 (Measure C).

3 1010 Finance Increase Fines & Penalties (Parking) 107,838 - 107,838 111,738 - 111,738

4 1010 Non-Departmental Use of Fund Balance FY 2018-19 (Unallocated Available Balance) - 2,114,375 2,114,375 - - -

FY 2018-19 Q3 R&E & updated RETT projections based on pending (6/12/19) commercial transaction

5 1010 Non-Departmental Contingent Use of Fund Balance FY 2019-20 - - - - 4,200,000 4,200,000

Contingent upon trigger being achieved. Additional terms to be negotiated with labor unions

6 1010 Workplace & Employment

Implementation fee for workforce enforcement standards - - - 336,004 - 336,004 Cost recovery fee to be determined in FY

2020-21 MFS Update7 1010 City Attorney Lead Settlement Revenue - - - - 539,616 539,616

New 1010 Finance Carry-forward set-aside from Year 1 (see below) - 50,000 50,000

Subtotal Revenue Adjustments 2,230,472 2,114,375 4,344,847 2,651,708 4,789,616 7,441,324

Item # Fund Dept. Description (Include Job Class & FTE)

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


8 1010 CAO Reallocate unspent cannabis equity funds - (2,100,000) (2,100,000) - - - See line 11 and 12 for add back

9 1010 FinanceReallocate unspent funds from Public Bank study - set aside for future regional bank

- (30,000) (30,000) - - - See line 18 for add back

10 1010 Non-Departmental Adjust VSSF & LTO transfer based on decreased revenue - (138,750) (138,750) - - -

10a 1010 Non-Departmental Adjust VSSF & LTO transfer based on increased revenue (20,224) (20,224) -

Added on top of the Oakland Together budget line for this category (-$138,750); this nets to -$158,974 total added expenditure reduction on top of the Mayor's baseline budget.

New 1010 HSD City-County Partnership for Re-Entry Jobs (350,000) (350,000) -

Unspent funds from the 17-19' budget. Allocation being renamed under item "53-New" below

New 1010 EWD Freeze .5 FTE Student Trainee 1 (23,935) (23,935) (24,411) (24,411) Freezing the vacant .5 FTE in the general purpose fund

Subtotal Expenditure Reductions (23,935) (2,638,974) (2,662,909) (24,411) - (24,411)

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMMING 2,254,407 4,753,349 7,007,756 2,676,119 4,789,616 7,465,735

FUND 1010 - GENERAL PURPOSE FUNDFY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTS

REVENUE ADDITIONS (POSITIVE #) & REDUCTIONS (NEGATIVE #)

EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS (NEGATIVE #)

Exhibit 2

EXPENDITURE ADDITIONS (POSITIVE #)


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


11 1010 CAO Cannabis Equity Business funding - 1,600,000 1,600,000 - - -

12 1010 CAO Cannabis Equity TA Funding - 500,000 500,000 - - -

13 1010 Clerk Costs for Election - 300,000 300,000 - - - March 2020 election

14 1010 Clerk Add 1.0 FTE Receptionist to City Clerk 99,924 - 99,924 103,532 - 103,532 Amount adjusted to ongoing per staff

15 1010 City Attorney Lead Abatement Funds Legal Support 0.40 FTE DCA III - - - 117,834 - 117,834

16 1010 City AuditorAudit of OPD, Information Security, and Homeless Encampment Program

- 50,000 50,000 - 100,000 100,000

17 1010 Council Staff increase 225,000 - 225,000 225,000 - 225,000 $25,000 per Council district and admin

18 1010 Council Fund Public Bank business plan - 30,000 30,000 - - - In collaboration with regional partners

19 1010 Council Community Murals - 200,000 200,000 - - - $25,000 per Council district

19a 1010 EWD Community Murals (100,000) (100,000) -

Reduce amount. Instead of Oakland Together proposposal of one-time Year 1 funding to the Council (divided equally per Council office), the remaining $100,000 mural funding moved to Cultural Affairs under EWD, to be allocated based on application process. Factors considered in application review must include equity need for the geographic area in which proposal located and consultation with the Council office is required.

20 1010 Human Services Cahoots Model Feasibility Analysis Study - 40,000 40,000 - - -

To study providing alternative mental health response instead of relying on police for that purpose

21 1010 Human Services St. Mary's Center - 100,000 100,000 - 200,000 200,000

22 1010 EWD Vocational and trades training program expansion - 125,000 125,000 - 150,000 150,000 Allocation to be approved by the Workforce

Board

23 1010 EWD

Cypress Mandela - Add resource support to expand job training programs and to add related services

- 200,000 200,000 - 250,000 250,000 Allocation to be approved by the Workforce Board

24 1010 EWD Add 1.00 FTE Urban Economic Analyst III 155,024 - 155,024 160,624 - 160,624 East Oakland business assistance

improvement staffer

25 1010 EWD Day Laborer program - 25,000 25,000 - 50,000 50,000 Move existing funding to EWD

26 1010 EWD Chinatown and Eastlake BID feasibility study - 125,000 125,000 - - -

27 1010 EWDSignage and capacity building for Black Arts Movement Business District

- 75,000 75,000

28 1010 EWD Dimond BID - 20,000 20,000 - - -

29 1010 EWD Oakland Private Industry Council - 200,000 200,000 - - - Allocation to be approved by the Workforce Board

Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


New 1010 HSD Homeless Employment Program - Community Ambassadors Program 350,000 350,000 - Renamed from 17-19 line item: "City-County

Partnership for Re-Entry Jobs"

30 1010 Human Services Our Family Coalition Grant (LGBT Family Support) - 200,000 200,000 - 200,000 200,000

31 1010 Human Services Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants - 150,000 150,000 - - -

New 1010 OPD 1.00 FTE 911 Dispatcher 79,202 79,202 164,113 164,113 Jan. 1 start in Year 1 (50% of cost)

32 1010 OPD Shotspotter Geographic Expansion - 200,000 200,000 - - -

33 1010 OPD NCPC O&M Budget - 24,500 24,500 - 24,500 24,500

34 1010 OFD Emergency Services Planning grant to Fire Safe Council - 125,000 125,000 - - - Matching funds for a CalFire Grant

35 1010 OFD Additional funding for vegetation management for fire prevention - 900,000 900,000 - - -

In addition to Mayor's allocation.The administration is authorized to use $100,000 of Wildfire Prevention Funds as seed money to enable launch of a program to initiate clean up of fire danger debris on private properties and then bill the property owner.

36 1010 OPW Tree removal/wildfire prevention in Skyline area - 200,000 200,000 - - -

37 1010 Planning and BuildingLead Abatement Funds Access Coordinator 1.00 FTE Program Analyst III

- - - 185,085 - 185,085

38 1010 Planning and Building Lead Abatement Funds Outreach O&M - - - 100,000 - 100,000

39 1010 Planning and Building Lead Abatement Funds Inspection Overtime - - - 136,697 - 136,697

40 1010 Workplace & Employment

Add 1.00 FTE Chief Enforcement Officer (New Class) - - - 336,004 - 336,004

41 1010 DOT Add 1.00 FTE Parking Control Technician 107,838 - 107,838 111,738 - 111,738

42 1010 Non-Departmental Labor contingency (TBD) - - - - 4,200,000 4,200,000 Contingent upon trigger being achieved. Additional terms to be negotiated with labor unions

43 1010 Non-Departmental Charter mandated transfer to KidsFirst! (Fund 1780) 58,825 - 58,825 61,382 - 61,382

43 1010 Non-Departmental Charter mandated transfer to KidsFirst (OFCY) (Fund 1780) 8,090 8,090 8,090 8,090 Required OFCY set-aside from new sales and

TOT tax revenue above.

44 1010 Non-Departmental 7.5% Contingency Reserve Set-Aside 147,062 - 147,062 178,654 - 178,654

45 1010 Non-Departmental Polling for ballot measures - 75,000 75,000 - - -

46 1010 Non-Departmental Citywide memberships and contingencies 80,775 - 80,775 230,624 - 230,624 Amount adjusted per staff to match total

Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


47 1010 Non-Departmental Oakland Technical High School Theater Department - 5,000 5,000 - - -

New 1010 Non-Departmental Oakland Parks & Rec Foundation 80,000 80,000 - Grant funding in year one addition to $20,000 per year in Mayor's Budget

New 1010 Non-Departmental 1.00 FTE OUSD Chronic Absenteeism 105,000 105,000 145,000 145,000

Since Mayor's budget only covers 1 of the 2 positions previously budgeted, this addition covers the 2nd position. Year 1 funding starts Oct 1 (.75 FTE). Funding to be grant to OUSD conditioned upon matching (see related budget directive).

New 1010 Non-Departmental Friends of Peralta Hacienda Historical Park 84,100 84,100 24,100 24,100 In addition to grant in Mayor's baseline budget

(for a total of $200k over two years)

New 1010 Non-Departmental Carry-forward set-aside to Year 2 50,000 50,000 - Carry-forward set-aside from Year 1 for Year 2

Subtotal of Expenditure Additions 961,738 6,038,600 7,000,338 2,119,377 5,343,600 7,462,977

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

SURPLUS / (DEFICIT) 1,292,669 (1,285,251) 7,418 556,742 (553,984) 2,758

Note:1) One-time additional allocation of $8 million in FY 2020-21 contingent upon achieving trigger to be negotiated with labor unions.

Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 1020 Finance Reduction in 25% Excess RETT set aside due to revenue adjustments - (79,599) (79,599) - - - As required per CFP

Subtotal of Revenue Reductions - (79,599) (79,599) - - -

FY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTSFUND 1020 - VITAL SERVICES STABILIZATION FUND


Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 1030 SSBT Measure HH Revenues & Use of Fund Balance 10,350,000 8,000,000 18,350,000 10,626,000 10,626,000

Subtotal Revenue Adjustments 10,350,000 8,000,000 18,350,000 10,626,000 - 10,626,000

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

$ 10,350,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 18,350,000 $ 10,626,000 $ - $ 10,626,000


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


2 1030 OPYRD OPRYD programs (aquatics, recreation, youth centers). 4,048,069 3,875,245 7,923,314 4,151,834 - 4,151,834

Year 2 allocation to OPRYD will be reduced if and when new funding is identified through sources such as philanthropic efforts and new revenue measures.

3 1030 CIP/OPW Tot lots, parks, recreation centers - 1,889,707 1,889,707 - - - To include Arroyo, Rainbow Rec, and OACC

4 1030 Human Services New and expanded food programs 1,223,983 - 1,223,983 1,245,880 - 1,245,880 New and expanded food program.

5 1030 Human Services/ Finance/CAO

Administration, oversight, and evaluation 700,000 - 700,000 700,000 - 700,000

Includes a third party evaluation. Staffing at the SSB Board shall remain at Human Services (including grant making). Will be re-evaluated during FY 2019-20.

5a 1030 Human Services/ Finance/CAO

Reduction in evaluation/staffing reflecting lower granting amount from what was authorized in Resolution 87020 CMS

(200,000) - (200,000) (200,000) - (200,000)

Measure HH commission support to be placed under the City Administrator's office 1.0 FTE Transfer for greater operational efficiency. Fund existing 1.0 FTE Staff Support for Commissiion from New & Expanded Food Programs in Lieu of Program Analyst II, and reduce O&M.

6 1030 Human Services OUSD Food Program - 1,800,000 1,800,000 - 1,800,000 1,800,000

7 1030 Non-DepartmentalAdditional grant funding and/or special projects to be distributed per guidance of SSB Board

- 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 2,000,000 2,000,000 Funds for future grants or special projects to be recommended by soda tax Board

7a 1030 Non-Departmental Additional grant funding and/or special projects (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000)

8 1030 Non-Departmental Contingency - - - - 128,286 128,286 TBD for Spring 2020, shall go back to SSB Board for recommendation prior to coming to council.

8a 1030 Non-Departmental Unallocated fund balance - (128,286) (128,286)

9 1030 EWD Youth Summer Jobs program - 400,000 400,000 - 400,000 400,000

Year 2 allocation to Youth Summer Jobs will be reduced if and when new funding is identified through sources such as philanthropic efforts and new revenue measures

FUND 1030 - MEASURE HHFY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTS - REVISED SSBT BUDGET


FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMMING


Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


10 1030 Department of Race and Equity Equity Analysis - 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 100,000

11 1030 Human Services East Oakland Senior Center Programming Expansion - 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 100,000

12 1030 City Council Community gardens - 200,000 200,000 - - - $25,000 per Council district

12a 1030 City Council Council Discretionary Funds for Community Gardens (200,000) (200,000) -

13 1030 Human Services East Oakland Corner Store Healthy Food Conversion - 200,000 200,000 - - - Define East Oakland as East of High Street

14 1030 Human Services Eden I&R - 75,000 75,000 - - -

Proposing to approve specified grants previously recommended by Soda Tax board to be allocated from remaining 2018-2019 dollars

15 1030 Human Services Alameda County Food Bank - 200,000 200,000 - - -

16 1030 Human Services YMCA - 150,000 150,000 - - -

17 1030 Human Services 18 Reasons - 75,000 75,000 - - -

18 1030 Human Services Asian Health Services - 75,000 75,000 - - -

19 1030 Human Services Mercy Retirement and Care Center - 150,000 150,000 - - -

20 1030 Human Services Spectrum Community Services - 149,791 149,791 - - -

21 1030 Human Services Urban Strategies Council - 238,205 238,205 - - -

22 1030 Human Services West Oakland Health - 250,000 250,000 - - -

23 1030 Human Services Meals on Wheels - 200,000 200,000 - - -

24 1030 Human Services Alameda Health Consortium - 250,000 250,000 - - -

New 1030 OPRYD OPRYD Service Expansion 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 1,000,000

Year 2 allocation to OPRYD will be reduced if new funding is identified through sources such as philanthropic efforts and new revenue measures.

New 1030 Human Services Senior Center Enhancements 328,286 71,714 400,000 328,286 - 328,286

Council President's budget allocated an additional $100,000 in funds each year for East Oakland. These funds should be used to supplement the needs of senior centers in the rest of Oakland.

Subtotal of Expenditure Additions 7,100,338 11,249,662 18,350,000 7,226,000 3,400,000 10,626,000

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

3,249,662 (3,249,662) - 3,400,000 (3,400,000) - SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)

Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 1720 Public Works Use of Estimated Fund Balance - 1,114,110 1,114,110 - - - Staff recommends close monitoring of expenditures & availability of Fund Balance

Subtotal Revenue Adjustments - 1,114,110 1,114,110 - - -

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

$ - $ 1,114,110 $ 1,114,110 $ - $ - $ -



FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


2 1720 Public Works

Parks maintenance restoration in Year 1 (restore 8.5 FTE cut by Mayor's Proposed Budget); Year 2 freeze unless funded by new Measure, review at Midcycle

1,014,110 - 1,014,110 (1,046,641) - (1,046,641) Restore 8.5 FTE to Parks (end-dated June 30, 2020). Year 2 to be covered by Ballot Measure or revisit at midyear.

3 1720 Public WorksIllegal Dumping Enforcement and Rewards Program to strengthen collection and rewards

- 50,000 50,000 - - - Year 2 funded in Measure W (2270)

4 1720 Public Works

Education and Public Relations campaign for culture and behavior change regarding litter and dumping

- 50,000 50,000 - - - Year 2 funded in Measure W (2270)

Subtotal of Expenditure Additions 1,014,110 100,000 1,114,110 (1,046,641) - (1,046,641)

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

(1,014,110) 1,014,110 - - - -

FY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTSFUND 1720 - COMPREHENSIVE CLEANUP FUND



SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)

Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 1870 FinanceAllocation of Homelessness Funding in Mayor's Proposed Budget

- 1,500,000 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 1,500,000

2 1870 Finance Affordable Housing Impact Fees - 5,000,000 5,000,000 - - - Year 2 availability to be determined at Midcycle

Subtotal Revenue Adjustments - 6,500,000 6,500,000 - 1,500,000 1,500,000


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


3 1870 Human Services Establish a Homeless Commission - 300,000 300,000 - - -

Mayor's budget starts this in year two we are adding funds in year one so the important work can begin. This commission is required by voter approved Measure W.

4 1870 Human Services Services for homeless youth - 500,000 500,000 - - - Access for LGBT+ homeless youth support.

4a 1870 HSD Services for homeless youth (500,000) (500,000) - Not deleted but rather added into the general anti-displacement/housing security fund below.

5 1870 Human Services Rapid rehousing of homeless - - - - 500,000 500,000

5a 1870 HSD Rapid rehousing of homeless - (500,000) (500,000)Not deleted but rather added into the general anti-displacement/housing security fund below.

6 1870Housing & Community Development

Affordable housing development including rehabilitation (projects to be brought back for Council consideration or incorporated into NOFA)

- 5,000,000 5,000,000 - - -

7 1870Housing & Community Development

Displacement prevention - 700,000 700,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000

7a 1870Housing and Community Development

Displacement prevention (700,000) (700,000) (1,000,000) (1,000,000)Not deleted but rather added into the general anti-displacement/housing security fund below.

New 1870 HSD/HCD Fund for anti-displacement and improving housing security. 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

Administation to return with report at the first set of Committee meeings in September of 2019 on outcomes of previous investments and proposal to most effectively spend this funding in coordination with county and philanthropic efforts.

Subtotal of Expenditure Additions - 6,500,000 6,500,000 - 1,500,000 1,500,000

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- - - - - -

FUND 1870 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUNDFY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTS


SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)


Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 2159 Human Services HEAP Funding - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - 9,000,000 9,000,000 From Governor's budget, Oakland is set to receive at least this amount.



FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


2 2159 Human Services Downtown Streets Team - - - - 500,000 500,000 Contingent on grant eligibility

3 2159 Human Services

Community based organization to hire the unsheltered to do litter removal from encampments and other sites around the City (including needle collection) and to monitor encampments like an RV Park attendant.

- - - - 500,000 500,000 Contingent on grant eligibility

3a 2159 Human Services

Community based organization to hire the unsheltered to do litter removal from encampments and other sites around the City and to monitor encampments like an RV Park attendant

No change to amount. Parenthetical in the Description in Oakland Together budget ("including needle collection") removed. City cannot hire community organization to pick up hazardous waste.

4 2159 Human ServicesMobile showers and restrooms, storage for homeless & trash removal

- 400,000 400,000 - 480,000 480,000 Contingent on grant eligibility & timing

5 2159 Human Services Homeless navigation centers - - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 Contingent on grant eligibility

6 2159 Human Services Safe Parking sites - - - - 300,000 300,000 Contingent on grant eligibility

7 2159 Human Services Programs to hire the homeless to assist with improving Oakland 500,000 500,000 Contingent on grant eligibility


Direct assistance to tenants to prevent displacement including legal assistance and emergency rent assistance

- - - - 2,000,000 2,000,000 Contingent on grant eligibility


Self-governed encampments, and temporary housing options (3-5 years) such as tiny homes, shipping containers, mobile homes

- 600,000 600,000 - - - Contingent on grant eligibility & timing

10 2159 Human Services Unallocated HEAP Funds (Programming TBD) & Staffing - - - - 1,720,000 1,720,000 Contingent on grant eligibility


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- - - - - -

FUND 2159 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA OTHERFY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTS



SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)

Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 2215 DOT Use of unallocated fund balance - 475,000 475,000 - - -

Subtotal of Expenditure Additions - 475,000 475,000 - - -


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


2 2215 DOT Melrose / High Hopes Streetscaping - 400,000 400,000 - - -

3 2215 CIP/DOT Warning Light System for Thornhill Drive - 75,000 75,000 - - -


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- - - - - -

FY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTSFUND 2215 - MEASURE F VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE



SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)

Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 2216 CIP Reduce allocation for Complete Streets Capital Program - (500,000) (500,000) - - - Swap with Measure KK

Subtotal Expenditure Reductions - (500,000) (500,000) - - -


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


2 2216 DOTSeed funding for launch of program to repair privately owned sidewalks and bill property owner

- 500,000 500,000 - - - -


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- - - - - -

FY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTSFUND 2216 - MEASURE BB


SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)


Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 2252 Finance Use of unallocated Fund Balance - 951,626 951,626 - 951,626 951,626

Subtotal of Revenue Additions - 951,626 951,626 - 951,626 951,626



FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


2 2252 CAO Additional Contract O&M for Evaluation - 28,549 28,549 - 28,549 28,549

3 2252 DVP

Resources for expanding DVP Impact. Chief of Violence Prevention to return to council with plan for use

- 369,231 369,231 - 169,231 169,231

4 2252 DVPStart up costs: Coordinated point-of-support for families in the aftermath of serious violence

- - - - 200,000 200,000

5 2252 OPD Overtime to address backlog of Homicide Cases & for Gun Tracing - 553,846 553,846 - 553,846 553,846

Subtotal of Expenditure Additions - 951,626 951,626 - 951,626 951,626

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- - - - - -

FY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTSFUND 2252 - MEASURE Z


SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)

Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 2270 OPW Allocate Placeholder for Illegal Dumping - - - (1,274,789) - (1,274,789) At least 25% per Measure W

2 2270 Finance Allocate Placeholder for Homelessness Services - - - (3,543,592) - (3,543,592)

Subtotal Expenditure Reductions - - - (4,818,381) - (4,818,381)

Item # 2270 Dept. Description (Include Job Class & FTE)

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


3 2270 CAO 1.00 FTE Project Manager III - - 323,611 - 323,611 High level administrator to focus on homelessness

4 2270 Public Works1 Illegal Dumping Crew (Zone Based Trash Removal Team) start recruitment in Year 1

- - - 871,149 490,000 1,361,149

Costing based on 5.0 FTEs (1.0 PW Supervisor I, 3.0 PW Maintenance Workers, and 1.0 Street Maintenance Leader), along with approximately $490,000 O&M costs for supplies, materials, equipment.

5 2270 Public WorksIllegal Dumping Enforcement and Rewards Program to strengthen collection and rewards

- - - - 50,000 50,000

6 2270 Public Works

Education and Public Relations campaign for culture and behavior change regarding litter and dumping in addition to existing funding

- - - - 50,000 50,000

7 2270 Human Services Mobile homeless outreach team - - - 269,342 25,000 294,342 Includes 1.0 FTE outreach staff and 1.0 FTE master level outreach staff. 1.0 FTE Case Manager I 1.0 FTE Case Manager II.

8 2270 OPW Illegal dumping cameras in addition to Mayor's allocation - - - 100,000 100,000

9 2270 Human Services 1.00 FTE Budget & Grants Administrator - 193,669 - 193,669 Fiscal support for homelessness grant and

donations


Self-governed encampments, and temporary housing options (3-5 years) such as tiny homes, shipping containers, mobile homes)

- - 600,000 - 600,000

11 2270Housing and Community Development

Grants for accessibility improvements to housing - - - - 500,000 500,000

Funding to provide grants for ADA access improvements such as ramps or other modifications to support affordable housing for persons with disabilities.

12 2270 Human Services Youth Spirit - - - - 360,285 360,285 Tiny House Village Project

FY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTSFUND 2270 - MEASURE W - VACANT PARCEL TAX



Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


13 2270 Human Services Unallocated Resources for Homelessness - - 985,325 - 985,325

Subtotal of Expenditure Additions - - - 3,243,096 1,575,285 4,818,381

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

1,575,285 (1,575,285) - SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)

Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 2415 Planning and Building

Waive permit inspection fees for solar power, grey water, and affordable housing (including ADU) that commit to rent Section 8

- - - (300,000) - (300,000)

From Fund Balance - The projected ending fund balance in Mayor's proposed budget is $93,935,620. This is revenue reduction and requires an ordinance for exemption. Reduced revenue moved to Year 2 for pending exemption.

2 2415 Planning and Building Transfer from Undesignated Fund Balance - 2,912,061 2,912,061 - 2,169,416 2,169,416

Subtotal of Revenue Additions - 2,912,061 2,912,061 (300,000) 2,169,416 1,869,416

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- 2,912,061 2,912,061 (300,000) 2,169,416 1,869,416


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


3 2415 Planning and Building ADU technical assistance - 250,000 250,000 - - -


One-time permit backlog clearance surge funds & report to Council on progress clearing permits within 6 months

- 500,000 500,000 - - -

5 2415 City Attorney 0.6 FTE DCA III for code compliance legal assistance - - - 176,752 - 176,752

6 2415 Planning and Building Small landlord/tenant education and outreach on code compliance - 500,000 500,000 - - -

6a 2415 Planning & Building Northwest Community Coalition neighborhood planning (50,000) 50,000 - - - -

Move $50k from Ongoing to One-time. This reduces the use in Fund 2415 of one-time revenue for ongoing expenses.

7 2415 Planning and Building Northwest Community Coalition neighborhood planning 50,000 - 50,000 - - -

For community outreach, community meetings, the payment of stipends, and other items for implementation of the neighborhood plan


Extend Evening hours for permit counter in permit and building for small property owners especially for ADUs

1,612,061 - 1,612,061 1,692,664 - 1,692,664

Pilot in Year 1 (revisit at Midcycle). $1.4 million in staff (9 FTE; 1 Public Service Rep, 1 Sr. Public Service Rep, 2 Permit Technicians, 1 Spec Combo Inspector, 1 Process Coordinator II, 1Process Coordinator III, 1 Planner II, and 1 Planner III) and an additional $200,000 in miscellaneous facility and security costs.

Subtotal of Expenditure Additions 1,612,061 1,300,000 2,912,061 1,869,416 - 1,869,416

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

(1,612,061) 1,612,061 - (2,169,416) 2,169,416 -

FUND 2415 - DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUNDFY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTS



SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)


Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 2419 Finance Increased TOT Revenue 351,300 - 351,300 369,869 - 369,869 Shall be expended as defined by voter approved Measure C

1a 2419 Finance Increased TOT Revenue 5,359 - 5,359 5,359 - 5,359 This reflects 21.4% of $25k per year. Rest goes to Fund 1010 (GPF).

Subtotal Revenue Adjustments 356,659 - 356,659 375,228 - 375,228

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

356,659 - 356,659 375,228 - 375,228



FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


2 2419 Various Additional funding per Measure C formula 351,300 - 351,300 369,869 - 369,869 Shall be expended as defined by voter

approved Measure C

2a 2419 Various Additional funding per Measure C formula 5,359 - 5,359 5,359 - 5,359 Shall be expended as defined by voter

approved Measure CSubtotal of Expenditure

Additions 356,659 - 356,659 375,228 - 375,228

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

(0) - (0) - - - SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)

FUND 2419 - MEASURE C TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX (TOT)FY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTS



Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 2420 CIP/DOT Use of Fund balance from Impact Fees - Transportation - 1,250,000 1,250,000 - - -


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- 1,250,000 1,250,000 - - -



FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


2 2420 CIP/DOT Two (2) traffic lights (Fruitvale area) - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - -

3 2420 CIP/DOT Installation of new trash capture devices 250,000 250,000

Subtotal of Expenditure Additions - 1,250,000 1,250,000 - - -

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- - - - - -

FUND 2420 - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEEFY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTS


SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)


Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 2421Community and Economic Development

Use of Fund balance from Impact Fees - Infrastructure/Capital Improvements

- 100,000 100,000 - - -

Subtotal Revenue Adjustments - 100,000 100,000 - - -

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- 100,000 100,000 - - -



FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


2 2421 OFD Scoping for Fire Station (Jack London area) - 100,000 100,000 - - -


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- - - - - -

FUND 2421 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT IMPACT FEEFY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTS


SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)


Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 4400 DOT Use of unallocated Fund Balance (per HRMA recommendation) - 67,500 67,500 - - -

Subtotal Revenue Adjustments - 67,500 67,500 - - -

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- 67,500 67,500 - - -


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


2 4400 Public Works Joaquin Miller Community Center - Acquisition of new chairs - 7,500 7,500 - - -

3 4400 Public Works Joaquin Miller Community Center - New carpet - 10,000 10,000 - - -

4 4400 Public Works/OFDEmergency preparedness for public city facilities (earthquake boxes, first aid kits, etc.)

- 50,000 50,000 - - -


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- - - - - -

FY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTSFUND 4400 - FACILITIES FUND



SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)


Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 5330 CIP Measure KK TE bond proceeds - 5,907,500 5,907,500 - - -



FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


2 5330 CAO Reallocate City Councilmember At-Large discretionary paving funds - (500,000) (500,000) - - - Swap with Measure BB

Subtotal Expenditure Reductions - (500,000) (500,000) - - -

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- 6,407,500 6,407,500 - - -


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


3 5330 CIP/OPW Dimond Tennis Courts - 300,000 300,000 - - - Parks & Rec Facility

4 5330 CIP/OPW East Oakland Sports Complex, next phase - 2,000,000 2,000,000 - - - Parks & Rec Facility

5 5330 CIP/OPW

Public Toilets - using Portland Loo model 5 Loos - one to be placed in Madison Park in Chinatown and one in Concordia Park in East Oakland

- 500,000 500,000 - - - Parks & Rec Facility

6 5330 CIP/OPW Madison Park Irrigation Fix and Upgrade - 100,000 100,000 - - - Parks & Rec Facility

7 5330 CIP/OPW Allendale Rec Center Tot Lot - 262,500 262,500 - - - Parks & Rec Facility

8 5330 CIP/OPWJoaquin Miller Community Center Cascade - Repair to bottom two fountains

- 170,000 170,000 - - - Parks & Rec Facility

9 5330 CIP/DOT Antioch Court - 480,000 480,000 - - - DOT-Streetscape/bike/ped

10 5330 CIP/DOT/OPW

Oakland Museum - Expand project eligibility to include water, energy, and ADA on both storage building and main building (retain $4 million appropriation)

- - - - - - Seismic/Parks & Rec Facility

11 5330 CIP/DOT Beautification and Streetscaping for East & West Oakland 500,000 500,000 - - - DOT-Streetscape/bike/ped

12 5330 CIP Increase allocation for Complete Streets Capital Program - 500,000 500,000 - - - Swap with Measure BB

FUND 5330 - MEASURE KK - TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTUREFY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTS





Exhibit 2

13 5330 CIP Oakland Tool Lending Library 420,000 420,000

14 5330 CIP Dowtown Oakland Senior Center 1,175,000 1,175,000


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- - - - - - SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)

Exhibit 2

EXPENDITURE REDUCTIONS (POSITIVE #) & REDUCTIONS (NEGATIVE #)


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time



Bond Proceeds Reduce additional NOFA from Errata - 15,000,000 15,000,000 - - -


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- 15,000,000 15,000,000 - - -


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time



Acquisition and rehabilitation for small sites (<=25 units) - 12,000,000 12,000,000 - - - Permanent Affordability Program


Acquisition, rehabilitation, and construction of affordable housing per Measure KK

- 3,000,000 3,000,000 - - -


FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- (15,000,000) (15,000,000) - - - SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)


FUND 5331 - MEASURE KK AFFORDABLE HOUSINGFY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTS


Exhibit 2


FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time


1 5643 EWD East Oakland Business Assistance - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - - - Program to be developed and reported back to Council

2 5643 EWD Use of available carryforwards - (1,000,000) (1,000,000) - - -

Subtotal of Expenditure Additions - - - - - -

FY 2019-20Ongoing

FY 2019-20One-Time

FY 2019-20Total

FY 2020-21Ongoing

FY 2020-21One-Time

FY 2020-21Total

- - - - - -

FY 2019-21 COUNCIL AMENDMENTSFUND 5643 - CENTRAL EAST DISTRICT TA BONDS 2006A-T (TAXABLE)


SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)

1

BUDGET MEMORANDUM

EXHIBIT 2 – AMENDED BUDGET POLICY DIRECTIVES June 24, 2019

FY 2019-21 Budget Policy Directives 1. Budget Transparency - List All Funds: The required General Purpose Reserve should be clearly listed on its own line in the budget. 2. Homeownership to 150% AMI; In the Bay Area, the cost of living is such that a family with a six figure-income can still need assistance. Oakland offers some options for low and moderate-income first-time homebuyers with area median income (AMI) up to 120%. We request a report back to CED committee about the option to increase the AMI limit for our homeownership assistance programs up to 150% when using funds for which this activity is allowed. 3. Illegal Dumping Rewards: In 2018, complaint calls on illegal dumping to the city increased 128%. The illegal dumping rewards program needs to be strengthened to help stop dumping. To ensure witnesses are incentivized to continue to provide the city with vital information to prosecute illegal dumpers, the Council requests that $50 be paid up front when the city initiates an enforcement action, and to strengthen outreach and education for this program. 4. Parking Tax Equity: Explore the creation of a system to collect our parking tax on parking spaces embedded with lease payments so lease tax obligation is equitable, and vital needs are funded. 5. Permanent Affordability Fund. Create a Permanent Affordability Program (PAP) with an annually recapitalized budget of $12 million to be utilized by Community Land Trusts and Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives to acquire, rehabilitate, and preserve small sites (properties with 25 units or less) for permanent affordability, prioritizing households under 80 percent AMI. 6. Public Safety Overtime - Forecasting & Budgeting: Request administration to develop policy recommendations and return to council with proposal to more accurately forecast, budget, and monitor public safety overtime 7. Towing Policy: Current practice has victims of crime whose vehicles are towed pay any incurred towing fees to get their vehicles back. We are requesting the City Administrator to develop and report back a policy recommendation to the City Council to either waive these fees or limit this practice. 8. Trash Capture Devices: The Council wants to ensure that as street projects are done that, we also install trash capture devices where needed as a part of the project’s scope of work. 9. Public Lands Advisory Commission: Develop plan for staffing and implementation of Public Lands Community Advisory Commission and return to Council

2

10. Grant Program Recommendation. The City Administrator shall return to Council with options for adoption to create a process for grant funding to service providers not receiving OFCY grants. 11. Funding to OUSD. All proposed disbursements to OUSD must be accompanied by a detailed contract for service negotiated with the City Administrator that provides a detailed budget and workplan on how funds will be utilized, require quarterly reports on the disbursement of city funds and require annual independent audits. Funding from the SSBT shall be expressly limited to food service for students. OUSD grants to address chronic absenteeism shall be conditioned upon OUSD maintaining an equal number of positions to address chronic absenteeism and subject to quarterly reports to the Life Enrichment Committee. 12. Report on Past Budget Policy Directives: Within six months of the adoption of this Policy Directive, the City Administrator or her designee shall report to the Finance & Management Committee on the status of all of the Budget Policy Directives adopted in the FY 17-19 Budget. 13. Healthy Housing Program. Over two years ago, the CED committee requested an ordinance be brought forward to address housing habitability, a critical threat to tenant displacement. In adopting this budget, the Council directs the Administration to return to the Council before the end of 2019 with a policy for adoption to enable a proactive rental inspection (Healthy Housing) program initially focused on lead hazards. We urge the Council to direct the funds programmed in the FY 2019-20 budget focus on educating landlords and tenants about lead hazards and encouraging owners to access grant funds available for lead hazard abatement. To improve outcomes, the Council will direct the Administration to work with the Alameda County Department of Public Health and the Alameda County Healthy Homes Department. 14. SSBT Advisory Board Support. To ensure efficient and consistent support for the SSBT Advisory Board, the City Council recommends reassigning support for the SSBT Board to the City Administrator’s Office. This administrative burden should never have been assigned to the Human Services Department which needs to focus its efforts on the crisis of homelessness, which has increased over 50% over the past 4 years and to addressing our ongoing challenges with transitions in the Head Start program. Placement in the CAO is consistent with the support offered to the Budget Advisory Commission. 15. Oakland Unite to Move to Department of Violence Prevention. Oakland Unite has been operating as a de facto unit of the DVP for the past two years. Adoption of the 2019- 2021 Biennial Budget, the City Council directs the Administration to formally assign the Oakland Unite operations to the Department of Violence Prevention. The City Administrator shall return to Council in September with any needed legislation to fully effectuate this transition.

16. Cultural Affairs. The City Council urges the Administration to identify ways to restore and make permanent additional funding for cultural affairs which was added on a one-time basis in the FY 2018-19 midcycle, in the FY 2020-21 midcycle.

17. Workforce. Affirm the Council’s direction for respectful and ongoing negotiations with our labor unions, and to cost proposals offered by Kaplan, Bas, and Kalb for discussion in Closed Session. All items listed above require a report back to the City Council by the City Administrator no later than the May 2020 Midcycle revise.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Katano Kasaine Director of Finance SUBJECT: FY 2019-21 Budget Development DATE: April 26, 2019 Questions/Responses #1

PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit to the full City Council and public, responses to questions raised by City Councilmembers related to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-21 Proposed Biennial Budget. To the extent additional information becomes available on any of the responses below, updates will be provided. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES 1) Who in the Administration is responsible for enforcing implementation of the budget

as legally adopted? [Kaplan] Per the City Charter, the City Administrator, “shall have the power and it shall be his duty […] to control and administer the financial affairs of the City.”

2) What specific steps are being taken to remedy the non-compliance of the one

department which is overspending its current budget by over $19 million? By what date is compliance expected to be achieved? Will that unauthorized expenditure be remedied in time for the Q3 update? Will it be remedied in time for those funds to be restored for the FY 2019-2021 budget? Who is overseeing the remedy of this unauthorized over-spending? [Kaplan]

Both OPD and OFD have provided City Council with an analysis of overtime expenditures along with the quarterly revenue and expenditure report since the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Fourth Quarter Revenue and Expenditure report was presented to the Finance and Management Committee on October 24, 2017. OPD has taken the following specific actions to reduce its overspending (as outlined in those reports): issued a patrol staffing directive; substantially altered tactical squad deployment in patrol, changed the way that mandatory training is scheduled; implemented a city-wide minimum staffing mandate that requires time off request to be approved on a city-wide basis rather than just the bureau or division level; and, formed an overtime working group.

DISTRIBUTION DATE: 4/26/2019

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

Subject: FY 2019-21 Budget Development Questions/Responses #1 Date: April 26, 2019 Page 2

OPD staff will be bringing an overtime report to the Finance and Management Committee on May 28, 2019. This report will detail the actions they are taking to reduce overtime overspending and other key considerations. As outlined previously, several factors contribute to OPD’s overtime overspending such as the service-levels established by the City Council, unanticipated events (e.g., sideshow response), negotiated MOU provisions as approved by the City Council, backfill for vacancies and leaves, and historical under-budgeting of overtime. OPD overtime issue cannot be addressed without first addressing the above listed issues.

3) What is the status of implementation of Oakland’s adopted law prohibiting leaving

guns loose, such as unsecured in unattended vehicles? How many enforcement actions thus far have been brought under this Ordinance? [Kaplan] Below are the 2017 and 2018 statistics for stolen guns (OMC Sections 9.39 and 9.37). 2017

59 guns reported stolen o 30 guns taken from vehicles o 28 guns taken from residences o 1 gun taken from a business

26 of 59 guns taken were properly stored o Many of the remaining reports did not contain enough information to

determine whether the guns were properly stored Two citations issued for three stolen guns One case was forwarded to the City Attorney after charges were declined by DA

2018

45 guns reported stolen o 30 guns taken from vehicles o 8 guns taken from residences o 5 guns taken from businesses o 1 taken during a home invasion robbery and 1 taken as petty theft

35 of 46 guns taken were properly stored o Some of the remaining reports did not contain enough information to

determine whether the guns were properly stored. 2 guns have since been recovered No citations issued

4) What is the status of deployment of neighborhood beat officers? How many FTEs are

supposed to be in this role? What percentage is actually being provided? [Kaplan] There are 35 Community Resource Officer (CRO) positions. As of April 12, 2019, all 35 positions are filled with the officers deployed to their assignments. There are an additional five Community Resource Officer (CRO) supervisor positions (Sergeants) and all five positions are currently filled.



5) What percentage of ShotSpotter alerts receive an immediate police deployment? [Kaplan] The median time for OPD to respond to the exact location is seven (7) minutes based on the last three months of data. It is important to note that response times can be impacted by the following:

Officers have SST Alerts on their phones and they don’t always have to wait for a dispatched call to respond to the alert, leading to shorter response times;

Officers are given the exact coordinate location (address) as opposed to circling several blocks based upon where a caller says the shots may have come from;

Based upon being given the exact coordinates, casings are being consistently recovered as evidence to be submitted to the crime lab which downloads the casing profile within 48 hours;

The casings link gun violence incidents locally and throughout the region; The process increases the solvability of cases and through this method, it leads to

more recovery of guns with subsequent search warrants and arrests; SST trends lead to better deployment of resources as the alerts become a “tell” or

precursor of where there might be an ongoing feud; ATF just came to the crime lab for a mandatory audit and reported we are recovering

casings and entering more casing profiles into the computer system (IBIS) at a rate faster than most agencies throughout the nation they have audited in recent months

6) Fire prevention inspection fees (wildfire prevention), how much are we charging, and

at what stage of inspection (second time? Third?) are we charging? What would we need to charge to fully cover costs? [Kaplan] As of FY 2018-19 wildfire prevention inspection fees are currently $330.27 per property. This fee is charged only on a failed re-inspection (i.e., second inspection). Property owners who are compliant on an initial inspection or re-inspection are not charged. In the FY 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule, OFD is proposing to increase this fee to $409.04 per property for cost recovery.

7) Parks and Rec fees, especially for aquatic center/boathouse, can we charge higher fees for non-Oakland residents? What would the amounts need to be to enable cost-recovery? [Kaplan]

The City’s 2018-19 Master Fee Schedule (MFS) for OPRYD’s rental facilities provides for non-resident and resident rates. OPRYD’s facility rental fees for non-resident are set at cost recovery with resident rates at a 20 percent discount from the non-resident rates. The Jack London Aquatic Center (JLAC) and the Lake Merritt Sailboat House facility rental rates include non-resident and resident rates. Please see the Adopted FY 2018-19 MFS OPRYD’s Rental Facilities beginning on page I-4 (https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/fy-2018-19-adopted-master-fee-schedule). Specifically, please see page I-13 for JLAC and I-5 for Sailboat House non-resident and resident rates.

8) How many hours per year of police time are used for special events/parades etc?

What is the cost of this service? How much of it is reimbursed? Where in the budget

https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/fy-2018-19-adopted-master-fee-schedule

https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/fy-2018-19-adopted-master-fee-schedule



do those reimbursements appear? What would be the cost to provide this service with civilian personnel? [Kaplan] In FY 2017-18 (the most recent full fiscal year), approximately 81,801 hours of overtime were used for special events. It cost the City approximately $6,596,317 in direct sworn personnel costs, all of which was reimbursed. The reimbursements are reported as GPF (1010) revenues in the “service charges” category. OPD provides security services for special events at the request of event organizers. Civilian staff cannot provide security services for most of the special event requests, however, there are some events that can have additional civilian staff and less sworn personnel. The cost to provide the service depends on the request of the event organizers. Generally, the cost would be the number of hours worked at top step for the classification. OPD finds great value in staffing events with sworn personnel. The presence of sworn OPD personnel at an event – ranging from a small party to a large sporting event – provides an opportunity for OPD to prevent problems from occurring. If a problem at a special event does develop, OPD personnel assigned to the event on special event overtime can address the problem immediately and effectively without draining extremely limited patrol resources.

9) Status report on budget vs. actual for last budget cycle. Which of past things

have/have not been done. [Kaplan] Budget versus actuals are provided in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The CAFR for the year-ending June 30, 2018, can be found on the City’s website: https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/2018-comprehensive-annual-financial-report. The FY 2018-19 Second Quarter Revenue and Expenditure report was delivered to the Finance and Management Committee on February 26, 2019. The FY 2018-19 Third Quarter Revenue and Expenditure report will be presented to the Finance and Management Committee on May 28, 2019. This report will include comparisons of projected revenues and expenditures against budgeted revenues and expenditures. Audited data for the current fiscal year (FY 2018-19) will not be available until December 2019.

10) Please provide racial demographic breakdown of proposed budget expenditures and

explanation of equity analysis of the proposed budget. [Kaplan] The Budget does not track expenditures by race. However, key programs (e.g., 3-Year Paving Plan, Measure KK) require that an equity framework be used as part of an evaluation.

11) What is the proposed annual cost for the additional security measures that are

proposed for the city hall complex, such as the metal detectors and related systems? One-time startup costs? [Kaplan]

The one-time startup costs for the equipment related to the proposed enhanced security measures is approximately $76,000. This includes the purchase of walk-through metal detectors, x-ray machines, scanners, stanchions, delivery, set-up and calibration and training for maintenance staff and equipment operators.

https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/2018-comprehensive-annual-financial-report



The annual or ongoing costs for equipment is approximately $10,000 this includes a 12-month maintenance plan after the one year warranty period expires. The annual costs for security personnel to operate the equipment and OPD personnel to provide a higher level of authority and support to the security officers, these costs are provided below in the response to question #12.

12) Who is going to staff/secure the metal detector system? What is the cost for the staffing? [Kaplan] The metal detectors and scanners will be operated by security personnel, there will be three unarmed security guards at each entrance (14th Street and 15th Street/ Plaza side). OPD officers will provide an armed presence and higher level of authority and support to the unarmed security officers. Security Personnel costs for two entry points with three guards at each from 8am - 5pm; and additional security personnel to cover evening meetings (one evening per week) is estimated at: $374,353 for 8am - 5pm and $23,643 for evening meetings for a total annual cost of $397,996 OPD Personnel costs are estimated at: $460,000

13) What is the cost of 24-hour security for the city hall complex? What hours/days are

currently provided? [Kaplan]

Current Days/Hours: Dalziel Building has 24/7 coverage currently. City Hall has Monday through Friday coverage from 7 am - 11 pm. Lionel Wilson has Monday through Friday coverage from 7 am – 7 pm. Cost of 24/7: The additional cost to provide 24/7 security (88 hours per week / 4,576 hours annual) at City Hall is: $115,589 The additional cost to provide 24/7 security (108 hours per week / 5,616 hours annual) for Lionel Wilson is: $141,860. The total annual cost to add 24/7 coverage to Civic Center Complex is $259,449.

14) What hours/days do we currently have security outside in Ogawa plaza? What would be the cost for doing this 24/7? [Kaplan]

FHOP has Monday through Friday coverage from 7 am - 11 pm. The additional cost to provide 24/7 security (88 hours per week / 4,576 hours annual) at FHOP is: $115,589.

15) Measure Z - CRO and CRTs are being pulled to other things – need to know how often

this is happening and options to remedy it. [Kaplan] The Department is currently evaluating how best to track CRO and CRT time and productivity. Past results are not uniformly documented or retained in a way that can be easily produced, compared and evaluated.



Community Resource Officer (CRO) and Crime Reduction Team (CRT) work is generally spent addressing violence through proactive directed patrol, focused operations, and performing follow-up investigation and related arrests associated with serious or violent crimes. This specialized work is firmly geared toward defined Measure Z goals even though the work may pull a CRO or CRT from their assigned geographic area at various times. Time may be spent away from an assigned geographic area to support citywide crime reduction operations, including operations to address serious and violent offenses, known suspects, search warrants, and surveillance operations. CROs are often needed to supplement CRT work so that operations can be completed safely. Time may be spent “off beat” to support the work of neighboring CRO where a strategy or response requires surveillance officers, arrest teams, search warrant services, or any other activity that is beyond the capabilities of an individual CRO. These operations – and the time necessary by all to safely complete them - are not typically evenly dispersed across all beats. Higher crime beats require more officers, more time, and higher prioritization. Even so, we often find that the resulting crime reduction and efforts positively impact other beats because crime trends and offenses may overlap and affect the health and safety of all beats citywide. CROs and CRTs may also spend time away from their beat for any unstaffed and unplanned crowd management or crowd control event, or any planned crowd management event that is short of staffing (e.g., sideshows, permitted or unpermitted protests or marches, sports parades or celebrations, or supplementary staffing for permitted events with inadequate staffing.)

16) Why is our vacancy rate so high and how do we create solutions for faster hiring, who has been tasked with this issue? [Kaplan] There is intense competition for public sector talent. The nation’s unemployment rate is 3.8%, the California unemployment rate is 4.2% and the unemployment rate for San Francisco, Oakland and Richmond region is 2.8%. These are 50 year lows. The City’s budgeted vacancy factor is 0% to 4%. The Human Resources Management Department, working in conjunction with City Departments, is tasked with filling vacancies. The recruitment process is subject to the rules of the Civil Service Board and agreements in labor contracts. Solutions to hiring faster include regulatory relief that requires agreement with labor groups. There have been occasional agreements but nothing significant that would provide a competitive advantage in this tight labor market. HR has streamlined recruitment processing, expanded marketing efforts and hired a recruitment consultant to increase capacity. The City has done well in its retention efforts. Voluntary resignations for non-sworn, full-time employees are down from 110 last fiscal year to a projected 91 for this fiscal year, which is a 4.01% resignation rate. A typical resignation rate for local government during normal economic times ranges between 4.5% to 5.5%. Given the historically low unemployment, it would be anticipated that the rate would be significantly higher, perhaps 6% to 8% percent. A key strategy to reduce the vacancy rate is to improve retention rates.



HRM continues to focus on identifying efficiencies, proposing changes to the labor agreements, improving marketing and working with departments to more efficiently fill vacancies.

17) What is the cost for TPT conversions for any roles which are not genuinely short-

term? [Kaplan]

The cost of converting a Temporary Part-Time will vary based upon a number of factors, including: 1) whether it is being converted to a full-time position or permanent part-time position; 2) the job classification being converted; and, 3) the step in the salary schedule.

For questions, please contact Adam Benson, Budget Administrator, at (510) 238-2026.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ KATANO KASAINE Director of Finance

MEMORANDUM

TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Katano Kasaine Director of Finance SUBJECT: FY 2019-21 Budget Development DATE: May 15, 2019 Questions/Responses #2

PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit to the full City Council and public, responses to questions raised by City Councilmembers related to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-21 Proposed Biennial Budget. To the extent additional information becomes available on any of the responses below, updates will be provided. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES #2

1) Regarding the $32.68 million of estimated remaining Measure KK funds from FY17-19, which projects had been allocated those funds? [Bas] The table on the next page shows the allocation of unspent Measure KK affordable housing funds:



Subject: FY 2019-21 Budget Development Questions/Responses #2 Date: May 15, 2019 Page 2

2) How much in carry over funds will be deployed in 2019-2020? [Bas]

All the unspent Measure KK appropriations for affordable housing in FY 2017-19 will be carried forward to FY 2019-20.

3) Why is $30 million allocated when there is $45 million of Measure KK funds unallocated for affordable housing? Can we allocate the remaining $15 million in this budget cycle. [Bas]

Yes, we propose the additional $15 million in Measure KK funds be allocated, and there will be an amendment proposed in the Errata on June 4th. Note that given that these are taxable general obligation bonds supported by additional property tax levies, it is important that developers have sufficient funding capacity from all sources (federal, state, and private) prior to issuance of the bonds to ensure timely spend of the proceeds. The proposed $45 million in new Measure KK affordable housing funds are in addition to the $32.68 million that is allocated, but unspent in FY 2018-19 (see response to Question 2 below).

4) Some of the Measure KK allocations support small site acquisition and thus

permanent affordability, but how do the NOFA for housing rehabilitation and preservation and NOFA for new construction categories contribute to permanently affordable homes in Oakland? [Bas]

Measure KK allocations that support the NOFA are used directly in the new construction of affordable rental and ownership housing and affordable housing rehabilitation and preservation through low interest, residual receipts and loans to affordable housing developers. Units assisted with City funds are restricted as affordable to low-to-moderate income households for the term of the loan (55 years) through the recording of a regulatory



agreement on the property. In addition, the NOFA funds have leveraged Alameda County Measure A1 bond fund set asides for affordable housing developments in Oakland.

Note that residual receipts mean that loan payments are due to the extent there is excess cash flow; if there is no excess cash flow then repayment is deferred for the term of the loan, which is 55 years.

5) Is there an existing total unit or building count that KK funds are being leveraged to

produce? [Bas]

These projects are estimated to result in a total of 915 units, which do not include the number of units from the small site acquisition program that is being developed.

6) Regarding HOME Funds, Fund 2109, about $6.1 million is available for FY19-21, why are these funds not included in the Mayor's summary as part of the City's affordable housing development funding sources? Are these funds being utilized for something other than affordable housing development? [Bas]

The summary included in the FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget called out NEW resources available toward affordable housing. Since the HOME program is baselined it was not called out separately. However, these grant funds are restricted to affordable housing related activities (e.g., building, buying, rehabilitating affordable housing) and continue to be available for these purposes in the FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget in the amounts stated above.

7) Regarding the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, Fund 1870: What are the specific revenue source amounts for FY19-20 and FY20-21? How much is being allocated for City staff time versus funding housing projects and anti-displacement services? [Bas]

The ongoing revenues in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund reflect the twenty-five percent of the City’s distribution from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF or “boomerang”) pursuant to OMC §15.62.030. No other revenue sources are baselined in the AHTF in the FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget. $643,162 is budgeted for non-project staffing costs in FY 2019-20 (of total proposed appropriations of $7.9 million) and $666,327 in FY 2020-21 (of total proposed appropriations of $8.5 million).

8) The Mayor's budget letter proposes allocating $6.7 million from Fund 1870 for

affordable housing development. Please provide the specific revenue source amounts that make up the $6.7 million. Please specify how much is coming from each revenue source, i.e. housing boomerang funds, Housing Impact Fees, Jobs/Housing Fee, and the Foreclosed Properties program. [Bas] This appropriation comes from RPTTF revenues. As mentioned previously, no other revenue sources are baselined in the AHTF in the FY 2019-21 budget, such as the Affordable Housing Impact Fees or the Jobs/Housing Impact Fees, as they can be volatile and are not easy to predict. Resolution No. 87469 provides HCD with the authority to appropriate the Affordable Housing Impact Fees and Jobs/Housing Impact fees as they are received throughout the year without returning to Council.



9) Regarding Housing Impact Fees, the Impact Fees Annual Report from the January 29, 2019 CED Committee specified that over $6 million had been collected and over $21 million has been assessed. What is the status of the collected revenue? How much of the $6 million had been expended in previous budgets and how much is being budgeted for FY19-21? [Bas]

In FY 2018-19, HCD has authorized appropriations of $2,463,805 from the Jobs/Housing Impact Fees and $4,894,717 from the Affordable Housing Impact Fees (impact fees collected through June 30, 2018), for a total of $7,358,522. These impact fees are allocated to projects as follows: Oak Hill Apartments (NOVA Apts)/445 – 30th Street, 95th and International Blvd., and Friendship Senior Rental Housing/1904 Adeline Street. However, as of May 9, 2019, the impact fees have not been spent. Any unspent impact fees will be carried forward into future fiscal years for affordable housing development projects. That said, all three projects have received planning entitlements and are seeking a building permit. The projects have differing timelines for start of construction based on amount of funding assembled to date. We expect Oak Hill to be completed first, with an anticipated completion date of October 2020.

10) What is the status of the assessed revenue? Does the Planning Department have an

estimated collection schedule? [Bas]

Assessed revenues (“invoiced revenues”) become due and are recorded as revenues when a building permit is issued (50 percent) and when a certificate of occupancy has been issued (50 percent). Collection of these revenues is dependent upon the construction schedule of the applicant which PBD cannot track. Historically, projects are finishing within 2-4 years from the time of permitting.

11) What has been the City's past and current practice regarding budgeting based upon

assessment, not just collection, of revenue, such as budgeting practices in Planning & Building or Public Works Departments? [Bas]

The City generally budgets based on an estimate of the actual revenues received in the fiscal year, not the assessment due. The total assessments due for Affordable Housing Impact Fees and Jobs/Housing Impact Fees may not be received for several years from the initial issuance of a permit. It is also possible that a development falls through and the assessed revenues due at the issuance of a certificate of occupancy are never actually paid to the City and the revenues already received at the time of issuance of a building permit are required to be refunded. Authorizing appropriations against the assessed impact fees is not a recommended approach because the City cannot count on the receipt of all the revenues from developments that are issued a building permit.

12) How much of the Transit Occupancy Tax revenue is coming from the AirBnB tax?

[Bas]

Financial information of individuals and businesses provided to the Finance Department’s Revenue Management Bureau in connection with the collection of taxes is considered confidential and cannot be disclosed.



13) Regarding the $3.89 million revenue from the Vacant Land Tax in FY20-21, please explain how this figure was arrived at. We believe that previous City information had the revenue level at $10 million. [Bas] The proposed FY 2020-21 budget anticipates revenues of approximately $7 million from the VPT. The administration of the tax begins in the FY 2019-20, even though no revenue will be collected until FY 2020-21. The total two-year administrative cost equates to $1.81 million, leaving $5.19 million remaining for allocation in FY 2020-21. Of this amount, $3.89 million has been programmed in the Mayor's budget for homelessness, and the remaining $1.3 million (25 percent) was programmed for managing illegal dumping and blight. The actual amount of Vacancy Tax revenues will vary based on the implementing regulations and factors relating to property owner exemptions. The ballot specifically said that the Finance Department estimated annual revenues between $6.6 million and $10.6 million (see impartial analysis of Measure W by the City Auditor). At a high-level, this estimate assumed that approximately 25% of vacant properties would be subject to the parcel tax. Again, as implementing regulations are further developed and defined, the Finance Department will have more reliable estimates of revenues.

14) Regarding the Mayor's summary letter proposing $3.8 million from the Vacancy Tax for different homeless services and displacement prevention, please specify the proposed allocation for each service listed. [Bas]

The Vacancy Tax does not go into effect until the second year of the two-year budget (effective July 1, 2020). As such, the Mayor’s FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget does not allocate these resources toward specific projects. Staff recommends that allocations be determined during the FY 2020-21 Midcycle Amendment when implementation regulations are established that will help to refine the City’s vacancy tax revenue projections and when the City Council has more information concerning the total homelessness resources available from all sources (State, County, etc.) in order to maximize the use of vacancy tax resources.

15) Regarding the Service Impacts information, B-1, proposing $3 million from the fund

balance in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for services and interventions aimed at rehousing for homeless residents: What is the source of the fund balance--were these unallocated funds? Is any of the fund balance derived from the $2.2 million of anti-displacement services funds that the Council had appropriated in FY17-19? Please specify the specific services and interventions and funding levels contemplated. [Bas]

This appropriation from AHTF fund balance comes from RPTTF revenues. The fund balance is not derived from the $2.2 million appropriation for anti-displacement services approved by Council in the FY 2017-19 Adopted Budget, of which any unspent amount will continue to carry forward into future fiscal years for anti-displacement services.

16) There seems to be a substantial proposed increase in the Mayor's Office Budget of about $600,000 for FY19-20 and about $700,000 for FY20-21. It is not apparent from the budget documents what is being funded by the proposed budget increase. Can you please provide more information on what's being funded through the budget



increases as the budget document shows that the staff level is the same for FY19-20 and actually declines by 1 for FY20-21? [Bas] The increase in the Mayor’s Office Budget is primarily attributed to wage and fringe rate increases, removal of the vacancy credit to align with similarly small-sized elected departments, and a one-time give back of salary savings in FY2018-19 that was restored in the FY2019-21 budget. The growth in FY2020-21 is primarily attributed to wage and fringe rate increases. There was a decline of 1.0 FTE due to a grant-funded position that was end-dated in FY2019-20. The budget does not reflect the cost reduction because both the personnel costs and offsetting grant carryforward were removed (net of $0).

17) Please provide 5-years of historical OPD overtime hours. [Taylor]

18) Please provide 5-year historical of citywide overtime dollars. [Taylor]



19) Will the administration be providing a racial demographic breakdown of proposed budget expenditures and equity analysis of the proposed budget? [Kaplan] Please see the response to Question 10 in the FY 2019-21 Budget Development Questions/Responses #1 dated April 26, 2019.

20) How much total is spent per year on the initial (first) wildfire prevention inspections

for privately-owned properties? (For which no fee is currently charged). How much would the inspection fee have to be, for it to be cost-recovering? [Kaplan]

The initial wildfire prevention inspections for privately-owned properties are currently performed by the Engine Companies (sworn Fire personnel) during regularly scheduled shift assignments. Since this work is performed during regularly scheduled hours, there is no additional cost for the City to perform the first vegetation inspections. A more detailed analysis would need to be performed on the specific staffing structure prior to the adoption of this type of fee to ensure compliance with Proposition 26. However, the Finance Department would estimate that the cost recovery would be approximately $591 to $676 per property.

21) What steps would be necessary to give Fire Department employees and/or other non-

sworn personnel authority to issue parking tickets, especially where vehicles are blocking emergency access? What would this cost? [Kaplan]

Citations relating to the parking, standing, or stopping of vehicles are generally performed by Parking Control Technicians in the Department of Transportation. The authority to issue such citations are granted to these civilian classifications pursuant to OMC Section 10.08.080. At a minimum, in order for sworn Fire and other civilian classifications to issue parking tickets the City would need to:

Identify the expanded list of classifications that would be eligible to issue parking

citations;

Analyze and assess the operational impact of this change on the work those

classifications are currently performing (e.g., what is the loss of productive time in the

employees’ current role?) and the potential policy impacts;

Bargain with the affected unions representing the classifications that would be either

losing or gaining work; and,

Provide adequate training to the new classifications performing the parking citation

function relating to the Oakland Municipal Code, state regulations, radio operation

procedures, citation issuance, code enforcement, and report writing, that may not be

inherent to their existing job.

22) The proposed budget shows nearly all of the soda tax dollars going to the Parks and Rec department, but does not provide a breakdown of specific uses of those funds. Please provide an explanation/breakdown of proposed uses of the soda tax funds. [Kaplan]



The proposed ongoing allocations of SSBT resources are as follows (by department). These amounts do not include any proposed one-time allocations of FY 2018-19 resources.

23) What are the staffing levels for Fire Inspection now and would fully staffed pay for

itself? [Kaplan]

The FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget includes 26.0 FTE Fire Prevention Bureau Inspectors, Civilian (both code inspection and vegetation management).

24) What is the status of implementation of having non-sworn enforcement personnel for low-level offenses like food truck permit issues, which was directed in the previous budget? [Kaplan]

Two Municipal Code Enforcement Officers have been working within the Special Activity Permits/Nuisance Abatement Division since June of 2018. Their work has consisted of education and enforcement of mobile food vending ordinances and special activity permit requirements, as well as investigating nuisance abatement cases.

25) Which positions which have lasted longer than 2 years are still listed at TPTs? What would the cost to convert those positions be? [Kaplan]

Data is not available to determine which TPT positons have lasted longer than 2 years. The cost of convert all budgeted part-time positions to full time equivalents would be $9.84 million in the GPF and $30.23 million in non-GPF funds across both years of the budget, for a two year all funds total of $40.07 million.

26) How much would it cost to develop an online resource center hosted by the City of

Oakland for families of crime victims who are seeking services? (Gibson-McElhaney)



Based on initial conversations between HSD and City’s Digital Services team in the Communications Office, the cost to develop an online resource center hosted on the City’s current web platform is estimated somewhere between $60,000 and $80,000. These estimates are based on a 4-6-month process of research and design, led by the City’s Online Services team. The costs include a design researcher to solicit input from individuals impacted by serious violence about their information needs and preferences, and develop design recommendations based on their feedback. Funds at the upper end of the range could be used to stipend research participants for their time and transportation costs. City Digital Services staff, working with HSD, would then finalize content, develop, and test the online site. Ongoing site maintenance would be provided by the City Digital Services team. Based on Council direction, staff could also explore alternative options during the research phase, such as text communication or engagement with impacted individuals.

27) How much would it cost to also integrate this service/information into the City's

existing 311 call services? (Gibson-McElhaney)

HSD staff have done an initial exploration of possible options to develop a more coordinated point-of-support for families in the aftermath of serious violence, though this initial response is not able to provide a complete picture of costs and options. The need identified by the Councilmember for a broader system of support across City and County systems is an important one that was echoed by participants in HSD’s recent Oakland Unite listening sessions, and would benefit from additional research and discussion with internal and external partners. In developing a preliminary response, HSD staff have consulted with City 311 Call Center staff, OPD Dispatch staff, County 211 staff, County Victim-Witness Assistance Division staff, and community providers involved in crisis response services. In doing so, a range of possible options and considerations were identified. Further research would be needed to accurately determine expected volume of calls, a critical metric for any cost estimates. As a point of reference, OPD reports an average of 30,874 Part I crimes annually, OPD Dispatch receives over 700,000 calls annually, and the City 311 Call Center receives roughly 150,000 calls related to infrastructure annually. Current call volume at one existing local domestic violence crisis line (run by the Family Violence Law Center) is roughly 7,000 call per year. 311 Call Center In conversation with City 311 Call Center staff, several considerations were discussed. As in other municipalities, 311 is designed to support infrastructure maintenance. Current staffing is low for assigned task, with 7 FTE in Oakland compared to 10 FTE in City of Berkeley (population 122,324 in Berkeley vs. 425,195 in Oakland). Significant additional training would be needed to enable staff to response to calls related to traumatic events. It is also important to note that 311 staff do not currently provide intensive coordination or follow-up as would likely be necessary to address caller needs related to violence. Given combination of above factors, adding new intake services to existing 311 center is anticipated as high cost and low feasibility. If directed, staff could explore the costs of creating a parallel, but separate, call center structure within the City; start-up and ongoing costs would likely be resource intensive. Alternate Options to Explore



Other options the City could explore include integrating Oakland-specific support into County 211 services, and/or building on the capacity of existing Oakland-based crisis response centers. Eden I&R 211 staff shared thoughts on several options for integrating additional Oakland-specific support into County 211 services. A lower-cost option would be to contract with 211 to add additional screening questions for Oakland callers, additional staff training if needed, include triage/referral to Oakland’s network of providers, and report data on calls to the City. A higher-cost option could involve 211 providing a dedicated Oakland crisis line with specially trained and assigned staff to help callers navigate to appropriate services in Oakland and Alameda County. Oakland could also consider developing additional capacity to respond at existing crisis lines (such as the domestic violence crisis hotline operated by the Family Violence Law Center) to fully meet need of victims of violence and their families. This option would allow leveraging of existing relationships between community providers and partners such as OPD, Oakland Unite and the County Victim-Witness Assistance program. Oakland could explore including dedicated City support to enhance or coordinate response to specific types of incidents such as homicides. This option is in-line with a similar structure in Chicago, see example below. Overarching considerations In addition to the specific considerations listed above, several overarching notes related to costs and feasibility were mentioned by all local and national partners consulted. These include: The City would need to clearly identify who the resource center/hotline is intended to

serve (e.g. all victims of crime, or those who have been impacted by specific forms of violence);

Resource center/hotline staff must be well-trained to ensure response is trauma-informed, and the City would need to clarify intended level of response (e.g. triage and information-sharing versus more intensive coordination and follow-up);

One of the most critical issues identified was the need to ensure that current resources are sufficient to meet the need of callers, should the City pursue any of the options above – while there are significant investments to support victims of crime at the City and County level, investment in additional resources would be needed to fully meet the needs of callers; and

Lastly, all partners highlighted the importance of investing funds in ongoing promotion and advertising to ensure utilization of any of the possible options.

With additional Council direction, staff could further explore these options, with the support of a consultant if funds are available (an estimated cost of $50,000-60,000), and provide a more complete and accurate assessment of specific options and costs.

28) (Lead Paint Remediation) How much is left in the previous settlement money from the

paint company and what are the allowable uses? Is the City allowed to use this money to prepare internal permitting systems so that it is easier for people to quickly qualify for lead paint remediation grants from the over $20 million of pending lead paint funds? (Gibson-McElhaney)



The final receiver order has not been entered, and the court may provide further clarifications regarding the scope of work that may be reimbursed from the fund. It is likely that it will be permissible to use the lead paint fund “to prepare internal permitting systems so that it is easier for people to quickly qualify for lead paint remediation grants” with the following caveat: the City will NOT be reimbursed for funds it spends before judgment is entered. Thus, any money the City spends before the receiver enters his/her order and before the abatement fund is created (by the defendants depositing money into the fund) cannot be reimbursed from the fund. It is also advised that any expenditures from the fund may be subject to challenge by defendants. Finally, the Court has not determined Oakland’s portion of the fund; the City is still litigating about attorneys’ fees and discussing the division of the fund with Alameda County.

29) Provide examples of other cities that have successfully implemented victim advocacy

or support services for victims/surviving families/witnesses. How were those cities' programs structured in terms of staffing and related resources? (Gibson-McElhaney)

HSD staff consulted with colleagues familiar with the national landscape, and with leaders of victim support services in Milwaukee, Chicago, and an international example from Israel. Summaries of these models are included below. As context, a summary of existing Oakland/Alameda County structures is also included. With direction from Council, staff could pursue additional research about program models in these and other areas. On initial review, Chicago’s model seems most promising in terms of comprehensiveness and feasibility of replicating locally.

City Description of Services

Chicago, IL Chicago offers a website and 24-hour hotline for families of homicide

Hotline calls are routed to the domestic violence center hotline, next-of-kin calls for every homicide are sent to this hotline by Chicago Police

Hotline dispatcher connects survivor to crisis responder employed by Chicago Survivors (a local community-based organization), their staff are the family liaison and mediator with police

Various tiers of service are provided for families of homicide: o Immediate crisis response 2-5 days after a homicide; o In home family support and case management; o triage, counseling and referral for children and youth; o peer to peer survivor support group, workshops, family dinners,

memorial events and advocacy opportunities; and o Court based criminal justice advocacy and unsolved case

meetings

Website: https://chicagosurvivors.org/

https://chicagosurvivors.org/



Milwaukee, WI

Similar to Oakland, Milwaukee offers various services for victims of violence, but does not have central hub to field calls and coordinate services for victims

Through the District Attorney’s Office, victims can access protection services, burial and relocation support, similar to victim services offered in other jurisdictions

Hospital-based services include crisis intervention, case management, and mental health support for youth victims of violence, as well as mobile behavioral health counseling for children and families exposed to violence

Some staff are based at the City’s Office of Violence Prevention and some at County health agencies (more staffing detail could be provided with time)

Website: https://spark.adobe.com/page/CsDD3qWrxADwj/

NATAL Trauma Center for Victims of War, Israel

Provides a 24-hour hotline for survivors of war and violence

Hotline provides mental health support over the phone and can link to short or long-term support based on need

Volunteers are assigned to callers and speak with them on a weekly basis for 20 minutes; volunteers receive 6-month trauma training and supervision and guidance from NATAL staff

Callers who require more comprehensive treatment are assigned to the clinical unit, staffed by clinicians

Website: https://www.natal.org.il/en/about-us/our-helpline/

Oakland, CA

Oakland has a range of services and supports for victims of violence, but does not have a single coordinated point of entry, as noted by the Councilmember

The Victim-Witness Assistance Division of the District Attorney’s Office provides advocacy to victims through trained victim advocates, and offers referrals to appropriate service based on assessment

Other County services for victims include crisis intervention by Behavioral Health Care Services and resources at the Family Justice Center for individuals and families experiencing domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault and exploitation, child abuse, child abduction, elder and dependent adult abuse, and human trafficking

Oakland-based victim resources, partially supported by Oakland Unite funding, include crisis response and long-term support services for victims of gender-based violence and gun violence; these resources are based at community-based organizations including the Family Violence Law Center, Youth ALIVE!, Catholic Charities of the East Bay, BAWAR, MISSSEY, and Covenant House

Websites: https://www.alcoda.org/victim_witness/available_services and http://oaklandunite.org/violent-incident-crisis-response/

https://spark.adobe.com/page/CsDD3qWrxADwj/

https://www.natal.org.il/en/about-us/our-helpline/

https://www.alcoda.org/victim_witness/available_services

http://oaklandunite.org/violent-incident-crisis-response/



30) (Ghostship Reforms) What progress has the City made with the post ghost ship reforms? Under current funding levels, when will they be completed and what are options for greater investment to expedite the process? To put this another way, over the next two-year budget cycle, what are the outcomes that are expected from the ghost-ship reform process begun under Executive Order 2017-01 and presented to Council in the report “Displacement Prevention and Safe Habitation” dated January 31, 2017? (Gibson-McElhaney)

Improve Interdepartmental Coordination and Communication: Fire Prevention, Code Enforcement, and the City Attorney’s Office meets weekly to

identify, mitigate, and manage progress for unpermitted commercial or industrial

spaces.

Fire Prevention, Code Enforcement and the Housing Department has developed a

workflow and notification process concerning Housing Habitability Violations and

coordinates our efforts to prevent tenant displacement.

Notice to Tenants: The department posts on all entry ways a Code Enforcement Action notice in 3

languages when an Order to Abate – Habitability and Substandard Public Nuisance

notice is issued.

As of February 1st all Notice of Violation’s are available to the public on the Accela

Citizens Access Portal.

Notices are available by request at the Inspections Counter to tenants.

Update Zoning and Building Codes: The Department has examined best practices from other jurisdictions and currently is

in the process of engaging a consultant to provide alternate code provisions as a

pathway to legalize live-work occupancy of commercial and industrial buildings. We

are finalizing the terms of the contract with the Consultant and our goal is to

commence work in June.

Increase Staffing Capacity: The department currently has 14 Code Enforcement Inspectors, 2 Senior Code

Enforcement Inspectors and a Supervisor. There is one additional inspector position

that recently was vacated and interviews are currently underway to fill.

The FY 2019-2021 Budget request includes an additional 2 Inspectors, 1 Supervisor, 1

Admin Analyst II and an Office Assistant PT to assist with Code Enforcement Services.

This budget also proposes assigning one of the existing Process Coordinators III

vacant positions to expediting permit issuance and assisting property owners with

obtaining the required permits necessary to remove unpermitted/unsafe construction

items and legalize undocumented dwelling units.

31) Please respond with an operational assessment of what it would take to restore a Metro division to OPD so that officers are no longer pulled away from adjacent neighborhood issues to address the increasing number of incidents Downtown.



Please respond with the fiscal implications of creating a Metro Division along with the expected improvements in service to the downtown/uptown area. (Gibson-McElhaney) The role of the Metro Area Unit would be to provide police coverage in the immediate downtown area. The area boundaries would be East of Interstate 980, West of Lake Merritt, North to W. Grand, and South to Embarcadero. The preliminary resources needed to stand this plan up are as follows:

1 Captain

2 Lieutenants

6 Sergeants

4 Foot Patrol squads (32 officers)

2 Late Tac squads (16 officers)

The schedule will be as follows:

Day Watch Foot Patrol Squads: Monday - Thursday, 0600-1600 and Tuesday - Friday, 0700-1700

Swing Shift Foot Patrol Squad: Tuesday - Friday or Monday - Thursday, 1400-0000 Dog Watch Foot Patrol Squad: Monday - Thursday, 2100-0700 Late Tactical Squads: Friday - Sunday/ Monday, 1800-0600

The aforementioned resources would require approximately 24 vehicles. These times are subject to change based on the need for coverage. Based on the information provided, the cost would be approximately $11.3M for personnel and $1.4M for vehicles.

32) How successful has the partnership with Alameda County been pairing social

workers with OPD officers to respond to 5150 calls? What improved outcomes would we realize by expanding this program? Are all OPD officers trained to de-escalate and respond to a person experiencing psychological distress? (Gibson-McElhaney) The Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services (BHCS) partnership with OPD that pairs a mental health clinician with an OPD Officer is known as the Mobile Evaluation Team (MET). For clarification, mental health clinicians are paired with an OPD officer, not social workers. The partnership with BHCS has been widely accepted by officers and the community. In the near future, a second team will be deployed and eventually there will be a total of four (4) teams in the field co-responding to mental health calls for service. MET is a first responder model which provides a Crisis Intervention Trained officer and specialized mobile clinician who use effective and compassionate methods of approaching psychiatric emergencies in the field which often make the process more efficient. The MET unit responds as first responders to crisis calls suspected of involving some level of psychiatric need on average eight (8) times per shift. The ability of the team to respond to



emergency calls in real time increases the odds of positive outcomes and prevent crisis escalation and sometimes serious crimes. The MET unit also responds to calls which are not routed through the 9-1-1 system, instead are County Crisis Line generated...which prevents them from escalating and entering the 9-1-1 system. When the scene is safe, the benefits of pairing an officer with a clinician gives the community the ability to communicate with whom they are more comfortable. Trust of law enforcement and trust of “doctors” vary for individuals in crisis. Successful encounters are dependent upon the understanding and cooperation, of not only the subject experiencing the crisis, but also family members and care workers. Depending on the scenario, a clinician or an officer can be more effective in de-escalating a crisis scenario. Collaboration and direct open lines of communication with case managers, social workers and facilities ensures continuation of care and reduced chances of recidivism, escalation in behaviors and decompensation. This is only possible because of the program’s Memorandum of Understanding. The MET officer has experienced a great deal of success with subjects encountered by utilizing the individuals case manager. In doing so, they are often able to divert subject to alternative services that would not be an immediate option without the clinicians knowledge/connection to the system. The officer’s ability to access previous criminal history to determine trends and likelihood of violent behavior is also critical to safely navigating a crisis call. The MET model allows beat officers to be available to respond to non-mental health related calls for service.

Yes, all OPD officers are trained to deescalate and respond to persons experiencing psychological distress. OPD Basic Academy covers de-escalation and persons experiencing mental health challenges (including crisis) in Learning Domain (LD) #37. The OPD Continuous Police Training (CPT) cycle often offers additional de-escalation and mental health related classes on a rotating basis. Attached are the current numbers for Alameda County officers trained in Crisis Intervention Training (CIT), an advanced level of training for officers in the field. OPD, by far, has the highest number of officers trained in the County

The patrol division is a rotating assignment and often staffed by the most junior

officers.

Classes are offered 6-8 times per year and OPD consistently registers officers to

attend.

The Mental Health and CIT Unit is in the process of creating an 8-hour CIT Update course for officers.



The Department currently has Domestic Violence Advocates available to respond to a victim upon request. However, they will not respond if the suspect is out of custody and at the victim’s residence. The advocates will arrive at hospitals or public places unknown to the suspect. OPD would need to consult staff at Family Violence Law Center (FVLC) to determine if they are open to riding along with an officer, like the Mental Health Unit, and respond to Domestic Violence calls. It is unknown if FVLC has the personnel to implement this type of partnership.

33) Has the City begun the work of a nexus study to examine replacing the current

inefficient condo conversion system with an impact fee? If not, how much would it cost for a nexus study and a feasibility analysis to undergird policy development of such a system (like Berkeley’s)? (Gibson-McElhaney) The current effort to update and revise the city’s condo conversion ordinance is being led by the office of Council District 1. The Planning Bureau would welcome a larger role in this effort, including but not limited to looking at what the cost would be to undertake a nexus study and a feasibility analysis to examine replacing the current “conversion rights” system with an impact fee. As background, the Planning Bureau recently received a $60,000 bid from Linda Hausrath Associates for an SRO Impact Fee Study. It took about 4 months for her to work on the project with Bob Spencer from Urban Economics as a sub. The SRO Impact Fee Study did not include an economic feasibility analysis, so a Condo Conversion nexus study and a feasibility analysis could take additional time and money.

34) What investments did the City make in the FY17-19 budget cycle towards reducing illegal dumping in the City? How much have those investments been implemented, what outcomes can be attributed to those investments, and how do those outcomes compare to what the Administration expected? (Gibson-McElhaney) See attached infographic for the most current update:



35) How did the City fund graffiti abatement in the past two budget cycles and what were

the outcomes and impacts? (Gibson-McElhaney) In the last two (2) budget cycles this was the graffiti abatement funding and outcomes.

Note: The electrical painters (EP) primarily repainted street light poles, but they also abated graffiti on public property when their equipment was down or during inclement weather.



36) When does the tracking system for vacant lot registration expect to become available? (Gibson-McElhaney) The vacant property parcel tax is effective July 1, 2020 (second year of the two-year budget). Staff will work on developing implementing regulations during FY 2019-20 (first year of the budget) and anticipates having more refined data at that time.

37) In the FY15-17 budget cycle, the City Council directed the City Administrator to return to the Finance and Management Committee regularly with an informational report to track the implementation of Council priorities. This practice was not continued in the FY17-19 budget cycle. What are considered the best practices in publicly reporting on progress towards implementing City priorities? Based on these best practices, what does the City Administrator recommend that Council consider implementing and what are the costs of each of them? (Gibson-McElhaney)

Council may consider designating a single point of contact to coordinate and report on budget implementation or require the responsible departments to report back to Council separately. We suggest that this be done through a public Information Memo in order to achieve cost efficiencies and not have to go through full Council agenda process, which is costly. Centralizing this function would require a 1.00 full time employee and cost approximately $198K annually. The Budget Bureau currently lacks the capacity without augmenting the existing day to day budget work. To avoid duplicity, Council should also consider the current level of informational reports provided by departments, since these reports may already be communicating implementation of Council priorities. Furthermore, inconsistencies may arise if multiple sources are reporting on budget implementation which may lead to confusion.

38) What systems or processes will be put in place to provide timely information on all

contracts and spending undertaken under the Administrator’s authority during recess? (Gibson-McElhaney) As part of the City Council Meeting schedule for the calendar year, the Summer Recess Agenda is included. For example, the 2019 calendar year includes Summer Recess Agenda dates of August 6, 13, 20 and 27. Staff prepares written reports for these agenda dates similar to those prepared during the regular legislative session. Each Summer Recess Agenda is posted for public access. In addition, staff prepares an agenda report that summarizes all actions taken during the Summer Recess and requests City Council ratify all actions taken. Staff forwards that report to the City Council within the first month upon their return from the Summer Recess..

39) If the City were to established camp zones and standards (e.g., KOA model) for the homeless, how much would it cost to administer these zones? Assume each zone provides enough space for 100 people. (Gibson-McElhaney) Estimated costs for establishing KOA style campground for 100 people can be found below. In this model, we have based staffing on what we recommend for a site this large (double staffing at all times) and somewhat similar to our model for community cabins but without flex funds. However, you could scale this model down with more minimal staffing and/or use



elements of self-governed models. We do, however, recommend, extra staffing in the early stages and recommend minimal staffing and/or security at all times. We have seen in other communities, where a large loosely regulated campground models have suffered from illegal activity and violence and had to be disbanded. However, if a site were to open and be stable for a period of time, the second staff person could potentially be replaced with a campground member who plays this role in an internship/job training position thus reducing costs. This model also does not include any services or flex funds. So, while it may address immediate health and safety needs of unsheltered individuals and their sheltered neighbors, it is not likely to result in many positive housing outcomes.

40) What is the cost of a high level administrator to focus exclusively on homelessness?

(Gibson-McElhaney) Staff believes that a high-level project management type position – at a cost of approximately $395,411 in FY 2019-20 and $408,757 in FY 2020-21 (fully burdened) – would be sufficient to provide administration and coordination of homelessness services and programs.




BUDGET CATEGORY

Personnel Amount FTE

Staff Wages and Salaries

Site Manager $87,360 2.00

Maintenance $15,000 0.50

Site Security $270,560

Subtotal wages and salaries $372,920

Benefits (28%) $104,418

Total Personnel $477,338

Operations & Maintenance

Water $20,400

Portapotties $80,400

Site Set Up $75,000

Total O&M Cost $175,800

Total Budget $653,138

based on $1,700 per month cost

based on $6,700 per month (based on Northgate baseline x 150%)

estimate

Two fulltime Site Managers at $43,680 per year per manager

Includes time purchasing supplies, setting up generators and lights, and other site

maintenance.

Includes two on-site personnel for all hours when the Site Manager is not present

(128 hours/week) to ensure resident comfort and safety. Base cost $20/hour x two

people x128 hours weekly x 52 weeks in a year = $266,240. Extra $10/hour for nine

24-hour holidays for 2 people = $4,320.

KOA MODEL Proposed Budget (100 participants)

MEMORANDUM



1) For the fire inspection fees, which are charged (at re-inspection) what percent of the money is actually being collected? How much outstanding uncollected fees are there? What steps would be needed to collect those fees? How much would that cost? [Kaplan]

There are 1,212 charges for Vegetation Management re-inspections in 2018 (including parcels that had multiple re-inspections). The total charges are valued at $379,562. Staff anticipates sending these invoices to property owners within the next several weeks and will report back on overall collection rates once payments are received.

2) Is it true that parking spaces which are leased “bundled” together with residential or commercial space are not paying our parking taxes? What is the estimated fair market value of such spaces? What would the estimated annual revenue be if those parking spaces did pay our parking taxes? Are there any other parking spaces not paying our parking taxes? [Kaplan] Parking taxes are not applied if the rental agreement does not break out the cost of parking from the rent. It would require an audit of every commercial and residential rental property (including single and multi-family units) to determine the number of such parking spaces (approximately 27,165 accounts to audit) and an estimate of the potential revenues.




3) What is the capital cost per bike rack to install bike racks? What is the annual cost to maintain them? [Kaplan] Installation costs approximately $600 per bike rack. This includes purchase & installation plus site inspection, public notification, and contract administration. $30 per year per bike rack is needed for maintenance. This estimate is based on a 20-year lifecycle for a bike rack. In addition to financial costs, there are often physical constraints on the installation of sidewalk bike racks (in-pavement utilities, narrow sidewalks, cracked concrete, street furniture) and for bike corrals (poor pavement, nearby storm drain inlets, parking removal).

4) Can you provide breakdown of the geographic distribution of those services which are provided for complaint-based public services, including specifically, pothole filling and illegal dumping removal? [Kaplan] Pothole filling: Below is a map showing all the pothole repairs performed during Calendar Year 2018.



Illegal Dumping: Below are three maps which show the geographic distribution of Illegal Dumping services performed in the Calendar Year 2018. The three maps are Reactive (City Crew), Reactive (Waste Management), and Proactive (Garbage Blitz Crews). Predominately, the areas of North, East, and West Oakland suffer most from Illegal Dumping activities. However, the combination of proactive and reactive services has proven to be the quickest and most responsive service model. The sheer volume makes reactive alone problematic, but proactive alone would cause service delays to several hot-spot areas in more remote parts of the City.



5) How much are scooter companies paying to lock to public bike racks? [Kaplan]

The Proposed FY 2019-20 Master Fee Schedule does not include a fee for locking an e-scooter to a bike rack. However, it does include a 0.10 cents per trip fee for scooter rides ending inside a meter zone. Bike racks are more likely to be in meter zones than not, so staff is not recommending a separate, additional fee for bike rack parking at this time. Instead, staff will study the impact of locking e-scooters to bike racks and return to Council within the first year of the regulate permit program to make recommendations which may include new fees as well as investments in additional bike racks.

6) What are the low hanging fruit of one-time IT infrastructure investments that could

lead to ongoing operational efficiencies and long-term cost savings for the City? How much would it cost for each investment? (Gibson-McElhaney) Following are a few IT Infrastructure projects that would lead to efficiencies. Please note staff have not done a thorough cost benefit analysis for these projects, so the numbers in table are preliminary estimates.

Project Estimated Cost

Rationale

Expanding fiber optic network to more City buildings

$2 - 3M The City’s annual spending on leased lines is about $200-250k. Expanding the fiber would increase the bandwidth and eliminate this expense.

Replacing old network equipment

$1M Significant portion of networking equipment is at the end of its life (i.e. no longer supported by vendor).

Deploying virtual desktop citywide

$1 – 1.6M per year

Currently each department spends $2-3K per user for new workstations. Approximately 20% of all workstations need to be replaced each year – $3,500 x 0.2 x $2,000 = $1.6M per year.

7) What are the projected proceeds to the City for the sale of 2100 Telegraph and where

is that money allocated? (Bas) The negotiated price and terms of sale are still part of ongoing confidential closed session negotiations which would not be disclosed until Council authorizes staff to bring the term sheet for consideration of approval at the CED Committee. The City will not realize receipt of sale proceeds until closing and transfer of the property, which only occurs after the developer has satisfied numerous conditions of closing (including preparing final architectural drawings and obtaining financing commitments). The DDA terms may also



contain extension options that would further delay a final closing beyond the 2-year budget cycle. Sales proceeds have not been allocated.




MEMORANDUM



1) Which fees in the Master Fee schedule are NOT fully cost covering? (Kaplan)

In general, categories of fees that are not fully cost recovering are for city services and programs that benefit the community and ensure that even low-income residents and vulnerable populations can afford. Examples of these fees include park use permits for special events and various recreation service fees, such as field rentals and aquatics for youth and seniors.

2) How much of the Cannabis equity allocation is available for job training and blight

abatement? How much was expended and how were those funds used? (Bas)

In the FY 2018-19 Midcycle Budget Amendment, the City Council allocated funds that exceeded the initial $3.4 million one-time set-aside for revolving loans to equity applicants toward job training and blight abatement. The City Council allocated $625,000 to maintain and stabilize job training, job-preparation, and placement services and related programs. These funds were allocated through the Workforce Development Board and are fully allocated or spent. An additional $1.0 million was allocated to fund a new rapid response illegal dumping crew (including equipment costs and operations/maintenance). Furthermore, Council added 1.0 FTE additional Litter Enforcement Officer and 1.0 FTE Supervisor, bringing the total in the unit to 5.0 FTE in FY 2018-19.




3) We got annual costing for cease fire, but where can we find that line item in the budget? (Kaplan)

The proposed biennial budget is presented at a summary level by Department, Service Area, and Fund. The budget contains tens of thousands of lines of data, so it is not feasible to present each line in the document. Ceasefire is included in the Bureau of Field Operations on page G-40 of the budget book.

4) How much money is in the Cannabis Equity Assistance fund? Where is that line

item in the budget? (Kaplan)

Again, the proposed biennial budget is presented at a summary level by Department, Service Area, and Fund. The budget contains tens of thousands of lines of data, so it is not feasible to present each line in the document. In this case, the $3.4 million was appropriated in the FY 2017-19 Adopted Budget, in the Fund 1010 (General Purpose Fund) in the City Administrator’s Office. In April 2017, the City Council enacted Resolution No. 86633 C.M.S., which invested new tax revenue collected from cannabis businesses other than the City’s initial eight dispensaries towards a $3 million zero interest revolving loan program for equity applicants and $400,000 for consultants to administer financial and technical assistance programs for equity applicants over a two-year period. Approximately $1 million in loans have been disbursed to equity applicants. Approximately $300,000 has been spent on consultants for two years of technical assistance and one year of administering the loan program. For information on the content of the technical assistance or revolving loan programs, please see the staff report for the April 9th Special Finance Committee meeting available here: https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3874564&GUID=64D76639-BF2D-4DC0-9B95-03E72F724344&Options=&Search=.

5) What is the planned date of issuance of the Measure KK Bond for 2019 and what

is the expected date for future issuance? (Kaplan)

Staff is prepared to issue the second Measure KK bond issuance as early as the fall 2019. However, that could be delayed to early 2020, depending upon the spending plan of the departments. One of the requirements of the issuance is that at least 85% of the bond proceeds from the first issuance is spent.

6) What is the expected impact fee revenue? Is it accounted for in the proposed budget? If so where is that line item? (Kaplan)

Please see responses to questions 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, in the FY 2019-21 Budget Development Questions/Responses #2 dated May 15, 2019.

https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3874564&GUID=64D76639-BF2D-4DC0-9B95-03E72F724344&Options=&Search

https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3874564&GUID=64D76639-BF2D-4DC0-9B95-03E72F724344&Options=&Search



7) How much does it cost to construct new public bathrooms for Chinatown, Lake

Merritt, and other high use areas? (Kaplan)

The most recent single building with two independent restroom facilities/stalls was built back in 2018 at the Woodminster Theater. The size of the building is about 211 sq ft total. The total materials and construction cost was approximately $155,000, including utility hookups. The utility hookup costs can be highly variable based on the accessibility and proximity of connections for each location that a restroom is to be constructed at. The $155,000 does not represent any project management, construction management, permitting, or other soft costs, which could be an additional 30% to 40%. After factoring utility connection costs, the overall costs came out to an estimate of $550,000 to $560,000. The utility connection costs can also be highly variable depending upon the location and availability of utilities and this is an extreme example.

8) How many FTEs and at what cost to staff HR to deal with vacancies and cut hiring

time by 50%? (Kaplan)

Charter Section 900 states that a comprehensive personnel system based on merit is the policy of the City of Oakland. Approximately 85% of all City of Oakland classifications fall under the competitive civil service. Additionally, there are a myriad of recruitment requirements in the City’s labor agreements. Compliance with the applicable laws, policies and agreements requires time to approve funding, recruitment planning, job posting, candidate evaluation, scheduling, interviewing and reference/background checks. To reduce the hiring time would necessitate significant re-tooling of legal mandates and labor agreements. While additional human resources staffing, both in DHRM and the Departments, could assist in reducing the time, the applicable processes, which are Charter mandated, significantly contribute to the current timelines.

With historically low unemployment, current mandated requirements and the difficulty in finding public sector human resources talent, it is very challenging to reduce hiring timeline by 50%. In the FY 2018-19 Midcycle Budget, the City Council authorized the following staffing increases in HRMD for recruitment that have had a positive impact on the City’s ability to hire staff: 1.0 FTE Senior HR Analyst (Fund 1010); 1.0 FTE Principal HR Analyst (funded by Planning & Building Department); 1.0 FTE Senior HR Analyst (funded by OPW and DOT). Furthermore, with Council’s approval, a three-year contract was executed last year with Cooperative Personnel Service (CPS) to provide on-call recruitment services for departments. To date, CPS has assisted with 11 recruitments, primarily within the Public Works and Transportation Departments After a thorough review of the hiring process, HRM, in conjunction with the departments, reduced the process from 53 to 32 steps. One significant obstacle was the time between a department’s requisition approval and the opening of the job announcement. To reduce this time, HRM is conducting prerecruitment checklists, which allow administrative and approval processes to run concurrently as opposed to sequentially.



This completes the recruitment planning process prior to an HR Analyst being assigned and results in a more efficient posting of the job announcement. Feedback from departments has been overwhelmingly positive and has reduced the time to open a recruitment by 30-45% on average.

9) What is the cost to fulfill Ghost ship/2551 San Pablo promises? (For items named

in the Mayor's "Executive Order") (Kaplan)

The reforms outlined in Executive Order 2017-1 (Improving Safety of Non-Permitted Spaces While Avoiding Displacement) pertaining to the Planning and Building Department are primarily concentrated in the Code Enforcement Division and have been enacted as an enhancement to overall enforcement operations; therefore, they are not tracked as a separate program or project and are not submitted as separate line items or cost centers in the FY2019-2021 Proposed Budget. Listed below are highlights of progress made to date and proposed additions in the FY2019-2021 Budget to further support the reforms.

Improve Interdepartmental Coordination and Communication: Fire Prevention, Code Enforcement, and the City Attorney’s Office meet weekly to

identify, mitigate, and manage progress for unpermitted commercial or industrial spaces.

Fire Prevention, Code Enforcement and the Housing Department have developed a workflow and notification process concerning Housing Habitability Violations and coordinates our efforts to prevent tenant displacement.

Notice to Tenants: The department posts on all entry ways a Code Enforcement Action notice in 3

languages when an Order to Abate – Habitability and Substandard Public Nuisance notice is issued.

As of February 1, 2019, all Notice of Violations are available to the public on the Accela Citizens Access Portal.

Notices are available by request at the Inspections Counter to tenants.

Zoning and Building Code Changes The department has examined best practices from other jurisdictions and currently

is in the process of engaging a consultant to provide alternate code provisions as a pathway to legalize live-work occupancy of commercial and industrial buildings. We are finalizing the terms of the contract with the Consultant and our goal is to commence work in June.

Additional Staff and FY 2019-2021 Budget Requests

The department currently has 14 Code Enforcement Inspectors, 2 Senior Code Enforcement Inspectors and a Supervisor. There is one additional inspector position that recently was vacated and interviews are currently underway to fill.

The FY 2019-2021 Budget request includes an additional 2 Inspectors, 1 Supervisor, 1 Admin Analyst II and an Office Assistant PT to assist with Code Enforcement Services.

This budget also proposes assigning one of the existing Process Coordinators III vacant positions to expediting permit issuance and assisting property owners with



obtaining the required permits necessary to remove unpermitted/unsafe construction items and legalize undocumented dwelling units.

10) Which permit processes are online now and which are not? What is the cost to

put the permits online that aren't there yet? (Kaplan)

Current permit processes online include Residential 1-2 units for trades (electrical, mechanical, and/or plumbing), roofing permits, zoning clearances, letters of determination, pre-applications for planning, excavations, curb/sidewalk/gutter, and sewer laterals. Additional permit processes planned to be ported to online in the next 2 years include Accessory Dwelling Units, Residential (New Construction, Additions, and Renovations), Commercial Trades (electrical, mechanical, and plumbing), Solar Panels, Obstructions, Temp Power, Parcel Maps, Creek Permit, and Basic Planning Applications. PBD requested additional staff (Principal Inspection Supervisor for permitting, BA II for Accela, and PM II for Digital) to coordinate and implement this project, which will require facilitating the technology to create a new permit application portal that is user friendly. 1.0 FTE Application Developer III is included in the FY2019-2021 Proposed Budget. The cost for each additional developer is approximately $200,000 per year.

11) Please provide the full list of Impact Fee categories, with current fund balance,

current revenue and expenditure, and projected revenue for 2019-2021. Please provide the total money received for each fee up until now, the destination fund, and the amount of money that is encumbered, and the remainder amount. (Kaplan)

Please see the responses to questions 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 in the FY 2019-21 Budget Development Questions/Responses #2 dated May 15, 2019 regarding the Affordable Housing Impact Fees and Jobs/Housing Impact Fee. Resolution No. 87468 provides the authority to appropriate the Affordable Housing Impact Fees and Jobs/Housing Impact fees as they are received without returning to City Council through June 30, 2023. The table below shows the impact fees collected in FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 (through May 2019).

Details on the proposed revenues and expenditures of the Capital Improvement Impact Fee Fund and the Transportation Impact Fee Fund can be found on pages E-61 and E-76 of the budget.

Fund

FY 2017-18

Actual

FY 2018-19

Actual (May 2019)

Affordable Housing Impact Fee 1870 4,894,717 3,057,888

Jobs/Housing Impact Fee 1870 2,463,805 627,936

Capital Improvement Impact Fee 2421 1,689,582 579,886

Transportation Impact Fee 2420 2,949,398 1,620,265

Total Impact Fees 11,997,502$ 5,885,975$



12) Please provide the amount of money currently in fund 2419 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) and out of that what is encumbered? The actuals are not listed on page 305 of the FY19-21 Proposed Budget.

Fund 2419 has a projected ending Fund Balance of $51,056 in FY 2018-19. The summary of historical expenditures for Fund 2419 should read as follows (page G-85):

FY 2017-18

Actuals FY 2018-19

Midcycle Budget FY 2019-20

Proposed Budget FY 2020-21

Proposed Budget

2419 Measure C: Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) Surcharge

$6,149,686 $5,968,390 $6,321,123 $6,573,970

13) In the Housing Affordability Trust Fund, what is encumbered, what has been allotted, and what is the remaining amount of monies not encumbered or allotted? Please provide a list of projects that are using encumbered and/or allotted Housing Affordability Trust Fund monies.

Specific allocations of Affordable Housing Trust Fund resources included in the FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget (“RPTTF”) have not been allocated to specific affordable housing projects.

14) What is the status of implementation of improvements to special event system,

including moving it out of OPD, which was promised as part of the Mayor’s post-Ghost Ship directive? What would the fiscal impact be of moving special event permitting out of the police department? [Kaplan]

See response to Question 10 in this report.

15) The Mayor has publicly stated that the amount budgeted for police overtime in the Mayor/Administrator's budget is not the amount which you actually expect to spend. What is the amount of police overtime that you would realistically estimate for FY19-21? (Kaplan) The response to Question 18 in the FY 2019-21 Budget Development Questions/Responses #2 dated May 15, 2019, shows the historical actual overtime expenditures for the Oakland Police Department. This historical data may be a good benchmark for estimated future overtime costs assuming no change in service levels. Over the last 5-years for which actual overtime data is available, the average annual overtime expenditure was about $29.4 million, ranging from a low of $27.3 million in FY 2013-14 to a high of $31.7 million in FY 2014-15.

16) In the CIP budget, which priority projects require matching monies that have not yet been secured? Any projects in this round of CIP that won’t be using monies this year? Or for 2019-2020. (Kaplan) The projects identified in the FY 2019-21 Capital Improvement Program do not require additional matching monies that have not yet been secured. However, many projects are only partially funded (i.e., there are not sufficient resources identified to develop the



full scope of work). The details for each project can be found in the Proposed Capital Improvement Program FY 2019-21 book beginning on page A-1.

17) In what fund are the sales of public land deposited in? How much $$ was generated from the sales of public land (based on Q3)? How much is estimated to come in during FY 2019-2021? Where in the budget book can we find the expected revenue from land sales? Leases? (Kaplan)

It varies. Funds from land sales are recorded as revenues in the originating fund from which the property was acquired. In many cases, properties were acquired or improved using tax allocation bond proceeds (both taxable and tax-exempt). The proceeds from the sale or lease of these properties will continue to be restricted to uses consistent with the bond covenants in the indenture, such as retiring the bonds or investing in other capital projects meeting a redevelopment purpose within the applicable former redevelopment project area. The FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget does not include any revenues from the sale of land.

18) What is the status of collecting outstanding fees for wildfire prevention follow up inspections and violations? How much money are we owed? When do we expect to receive it? Where is that money showed in the budget? (Kaplan) Please see the response to Question 1 in the FY 2019-21 Budget Development Questions/Responses #3. Fees for vegetation inspections are recorded as revenues in the General-Purpose Fund in the Service Charges category.

19) The proposed budget includes funding to implement the anticipated results of the City’s Vegetation Management Plan ($200,000), does this include monies for polling? Does the budget include funding for conducting an election for a new Assessment/tax for wildfire prevention? (Kaplan) These resources are not specifically earmarked at this time, pending the outcome of the Vegetation Management Plan. However, polling and election-related costs concerning the creation of a new wildfire prevention assessment district are consistent with the intended use of these funds.

20) Who currently cites food trucks which engage in unpermitted activities? How

many staff are assigned to this? What penalties are assessed? (Kaplan)

The Special Activities unit in the City Administrator’s Office is responsible for food truck permitting. There are 2.0 FTE Code Enforcement Officers that are assigned to this work (in addition to other duties).

21) Can you give us an accounting of all the building permits issued, since the inception of impact fees, # of units, which fee zone they are in. How many fees were assessed? For those who did not pay what was basis of exemption? How much $ of fees are anticipated and when? (Kaplan)



The most recent Impact Fee Annual report can be found here: https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Annual-Impact-Fee-Report-Fiscal-Year-July-1-2017-to-June-30-2018-Published-December-18-2018.pdf.

22) What percentage of the city’s public outreach and advertising budget is spent in White-owned media? What percentage is spent in media outreach to each demographic/racial/ethnic group? (Kaplan)

The City’s accounting system does not track expenditures by race and ethnicity.

23) What is in the amount of monies dedicated for Illegal Dumping Education and Outreach in the proposed budget? Please explain, what it pays for. (Kaplan) There was one-time funding of $50,000 included in the FY 2018-19 Adopted Midcycle Budget to fund educational campaign on recycling, illegal dumping, and waste aversion. There is no additional funding in the FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget for this purpose.

24) Please provide the following information or direct us to retrieve information for the following funds, the amount of unencumbered monies remaining in the fund, the available uses for each fund: (Kaplan) a. Development Service Fund b. Measure HH c. Housing and Community Development Fund d. California Park and Rec. Fund e. California DOT Fund f. Transportation Impact Fee g. Sewer Service Fund h. HUD-Home i. Measure KK: 2017A -2 j. Measure KK: 2017A-1 k. Multipurpose Reserve l. Capital Improvement Impact Fee Funds m. Measure B

For the estimated ending fund balances for FY2019-2021 please refer to pages E-53 to E-82 of the Mayor’s Proposed Budget book. The available uses for each fund can be found in the fund sources and descriptions section of the Mayor’s Proposed Budget book on pages E-37 to E-52.

25) How much would it cost to run a workforce program that hires formerly incarcerated residents who are trained in fire prevention work to do the brush clearing work that the City is currently unable to do? (Gibson-McElhaney)

The Fire Prevention Bureau has researched the creation of such a program and has developed the following preliminary estimate. This costing assumes a ten (10) person crew working from May through October in a classification similar to the Public Works Maintenance Worker, and supervised by the equivalent of a Public Works Supervisor

https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/Annual-Impact-Fee-Report-Fiscal-Year-July-1-2017-to-June-30-2018-Published-December-18-2018.pdf





with supervision performed on overtime. The cost of such a program are estimated to at approximately $350,000 per year, including equipment.

26) What is the historical Fire Department Overtime budget for the past 5 years? (Budgeted vs. actuals? Hours vs. dollars?) (Taylor)

The Oakland Fire Department Overtime report can be accessed at the following link: https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3856940&GUID=A1812B01-BA61-403E-A3D3-AC2016225811. Additional detail on overtime expenditures can be found in the response to Question 18 in the FY 2019-21 Budget Development Questions/Responses #2 dated May 15, 2019.

27) What are the minimum staffing levels (if they exist) for each department based on

the various applicable restricted funding sources, measures, grants, and established ordinances? (Taylor) This information is not readily available, particularly for the restrictions on City staffing tied to grants. A few key minimum staffing levels and funding levels are: The Memorandum of Understanding between the City and IAFF, Local 55, describes

the minimum staffing for sworn Fire Fighters (https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/city-of-oakland-labor-union-memoranda-of-understanding).

Measure Z (Safety & Services Act of 2014) establishes minimums staffing levels for both active and filled sworn police positions in OPD (http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/cityadministrator/documents/report/OAK063829.pdf).

Measure D & Q (Library Measures) have minimum funding requirements (i.e.,

“maintenance of effort”) in the General Purpose Fund (https://www.acvote.org/acvote-assets/02_election_information/PDFs/20180605/en/Measures/Measure%20D.pdf).

28) What amount of impact fees have been collected, but not spent? Where is that

reflected in the budget document? (Taylor) Please see staff’s response to Question 11 in this report.

Fund

FY 2017-18

Actual

FY 2018-19

Actual (May 2019)

Affordable Housing Impact Fee 1870 4,894,717 3,057,888

Jobs/Housing Impact Fee 1870 2,463,805 627,936

Capital Improvement Impact Fee 2421 1,689,582 579,886

Transportation Impact Fee 2420 2,949,398 1,620,265

Total Impact Fees 11,997,502$ 5,885,975$

https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3856940&GUID=A1812B01-BA61-403E-A3D3-AC2016225811

https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3856940&GUID=A1812B01-BA61-403E-A3D3-AC2016225811

https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/city-of-oakland-labor-union-memoranda-of-understanding

https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/city-of-oakland-labor-union-memoranda-of-understanding

http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/cityadministrator/documents/report/OAK063829.pdf

http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/cityadministrator/documents/report/OAK063829.pdf

https://www.acvote.org/acvote-assets/02_election_information/PDFs/20180605/en/Measures/Measure%20D.pdf

https://www.acvote.org/acvote-assets/02_election_information/PDFs/20180605/en/Measures/Measure%20D.pdf



29) Where are anticipated impact fees from in-progress development projects reflected in the budget document? How much is projected to be received from all in-progress projects in each year (2019-20 and 2020-21) based on the current project schedule? If those impact fees are pre-allocated toward specific budget priorities due to existing policies, please identify how much of the anticipated amount is pre-allocated and the priority to which the funds are dedicated. (Taylor) Please see staff’s response to Question 11 in this report. With a wide fluctuation in year-to-year numbers based on development activities in the City, reliably estimating future impact fees is challenging. As such, adjustments are typically made through budget augmentations during the fiscal year.

30) Why is there a need for the additional 1.00 FTE City Administrator Analyst and 1.00 FTE City Administrator Public Service Representative that are proposed to be paid for by Cannabis permit fee revenues? What is impact if the fee revenue is not available to fund these positions? (Taylor) These are existing positions which were initially funded from cannabis application fee revenues on a one-time basis. The Proposed Budget makes these positions permanent and funds them from ongoing cannabis permit revenues which are restricted for regulatory purposes. To be clear, the permit revenues are not the same as cannabis business tax revenues. Failure to add these positions will slow the permitting process for cannabis businesses, including the City’s equity applicants.

31) Why are we adding a benefits technician given that the biggest issue facing HR appears to be the high vacancy rate and staffing shortage? How does the additional benefits technician improve this? If not, please explain why this is a higher priority than additional recruiting staff? (Taylor) DHRM is responsible for the full suite of human resources services, including classification and recruitment, employee relations, and benefits. The City made significant investments in the recruitment staffing over the last several years, while benefits staff have declined while the workload and demands have increased. This add would restore that capacity.

32) Why is the 0.5 FTE of Assistant to the City Administrator salary being transferred to the Measure Z Fund (2252)? What is the justification? Which portion of measure Z allocation is this being paid from? (evaluation? fire? OPD? Violence Prevention?) (Taylor) The position is being transferred to oversee the contracting process for Measure Z evaluation. It is cost neutral and is offset by different positions moving into the GPF.

33) Why is Deputy Director of Public Ethics Commission paid for out of Department of

Violence Prevention? (Taylor) This is a placeholder position only for the Deputy Director of Violence Prevention and will be changed once the relevant classification is created.



34) Why are OPL staff positions being reduced by 6 FTEs (and then regaining 2 of those FTEs in Budget year 2) if we just passed Measure D with new funding for libraries? (Taylor) Measure D substantially increased the number of FTE in the Oakland Public Library. These adjustments are technical clean-up in balancing OPL’s various funding sources (GPF, Measure D, and Measure Q) and aligning the proper classifications with OPL requirements for expanded hours, days, and programs.

35) Why isn't the reduction in 41.3 FTE of authorized positions (Police officer Trainee and Police Cadet) listed in the OPD significant changes table? What are the associated cost savings? What are the adverse impacts to staffing levels and service? (Taylor) The additional Police Officer Trainees in the midcycle budget were a one-time add to support an additional police academy in FY 2018-19. Other one-time time items are not included in significant changes unless they are added back into the budget as the currently policy assumes they expire. The additional OPD cadets were funded via a grant. If that grant is renewed or other eligible grant sources are found, they will be added back outside the budget process.

36) What is the total amount of unspent budget from DVP Measure funding in 2017-

2019 fiscal year? Are those funds from restricted or unrestricted funds? What are the restrictions on how those dollars can be spent? (Taylor) The available funds in the Department of Violence Prevention was approximately $662,000 at the end of FY 2017-18. These funds are budgeted in Measure Z – Violence Prevention and Public Safety Act of 2014, which is a restricted funding source. Revenues in this fund are generated from a special parcel and parking tax and can only be used on violence prevention through social services intervention, long-term crime prevention programs, police services and fire safety and paramedic support. The unspent funds were carried over to FY 2018-19 for Measure Z Evaluation.

37) Why are we moving the Asst Director of Public Works to Asst Director of HR? Given that there is a high vacancy rate in Public Works, will this position be exclusively focused on recruiting and retaining staff in Public Works Department? (Taylor) Assistant Director of Public Works was a placeholder position until the new classification, Assistant Human Resources Director, was created.



38) How much money is budgeted - staff and financial costs for the new Department of Workplace and Employment Standards? What is the current plan for how this department will be organized and operate? (Taylor) The Department of Workplace and Employment Standards will be in operation starting in FY 2020-21. For details on this department’s operation, refer to the FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget Book page G-19. Staff will return next year with a more detailed plan for the Department of Workplace and Employment Standards.




MEMORANDUM

TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council FROM: Katano Kasaine Director of Finance SUBJECT: FY 2019-21 Budget Development DATE: June 7, 2019 Questions/Responses #5


1) What is the annual cost of the police officers who cover Council meetings? (Kaplan)

Typically, two Area 1 Officers staff City Council meetings on regular time. There is not a special tracking code for City Council meetings, and since the assignment is normally on regular time, this information is not tracked in Oracle which is necessary to pull the true annual costs.

2) What is the annual cost of police officers who attend community meetings? (Kaplan)

The NSA requires every officer attend a community meeting once a quarter. The officers usually attend community meetings on regular time vs. overtime.

3) Why is the recent Q3 R&E Report’s projected 2018-19 OPD expenditure $20M more than projected? What costs were incurred in addition to overtime to create this discrepancy between current projection and the projection from June 2018? (Taylor)

OPD is projected in third quarter by $7.8 million once reimbursements are included. This overspending is due to additional personnel costs (overtime) to provide policing services, and roughly $0.9 million is due to accident repairs of OPD’s vehicles.

4) What are the total number of people being taken into custody per year for the most recent few years divided by category of offense for which they were taken in (e.g.



Subject: FY 2019-21 Budget Development Questions/Responses #5 Date: June 7, 2019 Page 2

How many for drug dealing, how many for shooting, how many for burglary, etc.)? (Kaplan)

A table below lists arrests by category for calendar years 2016, 2017, and 2018.

Violent Crime 2016 2017 2018

CRIMINAL HOMICIDE - MANSLAUGHTER BY NEGLIGENCE 3 3 1

CRIMINAL HOMICIDE - MURDER AND NONNEGLIGENT HOMICIDE 30 44 25

FORCIBLE RAPE - ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT FORCIBLE RAPE 8 4 8

FORCIBLE RAPE - RAPE BY FORCE 46 55 33

ROBBERY - FIREARM 217 242 234

ROBBERY - KNIFE OR CUTTING INSTRUMENT 44 49 54

ROBBERY - OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPON 2 2 7

ROBBERY - STRONG-ARM (HANDS, FISTS, FEET, ETC.) 58 45 126

ASSAULT - FIREARM 67 66 78

ASSAULT - HANDS, FISTS, FEET, ETC. - AGGRAVATED INJURY 194 219 268

ASSAULT - KNIFE OR CUTTING INSTRUMENT 294 345 237

ASSAULT - OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPON 174 207 297

Violent Crime — Total 1,137 1,281 1,368

Property Crime 2016 2017 2018

ARSON - OTHER (CROPS, TIMBER, FENCES, SIGNS, ETC.) 1 2 1

ARSON - STRUCTURAL - SINGLE OCCUPANCY RESIDENTIAL 4 11 21

BURGLARY - ATTEMPTED FORCIBLE ENTRY 2 2 0

BURGLARY - FORCIBLE ENTRY 9 9 35

BURGLARY - UNLAWFUL ENTRY - NO FORCE 179 213 165

LARCENY THEFT (EXCEPT MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT) 839 811 762

MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - AUTOS 29 17 24

MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT - TRUCKS AND BUSES 50 66 16

Property Crime — Total 1,113 1,131 1,024

Crime — Total 2,250 2,412 2,392

All Other Offenses 2016 2017 2018

ALL OTHER OFFENSES (EXCEPT TRAFFIC) 549 569 506

ASSAULT - OTHER ASSAULTS - SIMPLE, NOT AGGRAVATED 2,206 2,132 2,112

CURFEW AND LOITERING LAWS (PERSONS UNDER 18) 82 105 58

DISORDERLY CONDUCT 71 26 20

DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 348 325 256

DRUG ABUSE VIOLATION - POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA 351 95 69

DRUG ABUSE VIOLATION - POSSESSION OF OPIUM OR COCAINE 80 79 31

DRUG ABUSE VIOLATION - POSSESSION OF OTHER 1,065 1,067 652

DRUG ABUSE VIOLATION - SALE/MANUFACTURING MARIJUANA 36 13 4

DRUG ABUSE VIOLATION - SALE/MANUFACTURING OPIUM OR COCAINE 44 56 34

DRUG ABUSE VIOLATION - SALE/MANUFACTURING OTHER 127 107 79



DRUNKENESS 25 5 40

EMBEZZLEMENT 14 9 16

FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING 41 39 26

FRAUD 15 4 3

GAMBLING - ALL OTHER 6 8 3

LIQUOR LAWS 3 4 6

MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES* 3,509 3,127 2,463

OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY AND CHILDREN 128 122 70

PROSTITUTION AND COMMERCIALIZED VICE 712 600 418

RUN-AWAYS (PERSONS UNDER 18) 79 76 66

SEX OFFENSES 71 76 68

VANDALISM 173 207 178

WEAPONS - CARRYING, POSSESSING, ETC. 463 467 381

All Other Offense - Total 10,198 9,318 7,559

Grand Total 12,448 11,730 9,951

5) What OPD positions are available for civilianization? How many of them will be

civilianized in 2019-20? 2020-21? (Taylor)

The positions below are available for civilianization. None are scheduled to be civilianized in FY2019-20 or FY2020-21. Civilianization would result in additional costs.

Sworn Position Professional Staff Position

IT Officer (1) System Analyst I

Fleet Officer (1) Fleet Specialist

BFO Admin Officer (1) Administrative Analyst II

Evidence Tech Officer (3) Police Evidence Technicians

Evidence Tech Sgt. (1) Management Assistant

Lead PIO Officer (1) Public Information Officer II

PIO Officer (1) Public Information Officer I

6) What total funding and what additional (new in FY 19-21) funding is in the proposed

budget for illegal dumping enforcement? Please itemize these proposed expenditures? (Kalb)

There are 5.0 FTEs (1.0 Clean Community Supervisor and 4.0 Environmental Enforcement Officers) budgeted in the proposed budget for the Illegal Dumping Enforcement program. Council approved adding of these positions, along with necessary one-time equipment/vehicle costs, in the FY 2018-19 Midcycle Budget. The FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget includes one-time funding of $125,000 over two years ($25,000 in FY 2019-20 and $100,000 in FY 2020-21) to install additional cameras in high illegal dumping activity areas to enhance monitoring and enforcement.



7) If the council were to agree that we need 20% increase in walking/ patrol officers in the Areas with the highest crime in the city, where would you advise that this budget allocation come from within the OPD budget? (Taylor)

To increase walking/patrol officers in areas with the highest crime by 20% would require at least 35-40 additional officers. These officers would have to come from specialized units. Below are the specialized units (information as of March 21, 2019). This would significantly impact the work of these specialized units.

Unit Positions Filled Positions

Ceasefire 32 28

Community Resources Officer 35 35

Crime Reduction Team 40 32

Foot Patrol Unit 30 24

Helicopter Unit 3 3

Motors Unit 16 14

Marine Unit 1 1

K9 Unit 9 8

ABAT Unit 2 2

Special Events Unit 1 1

Total 169 148

8) What is the vacancy rate of parking control technicians? If we were to increase the

number of parking control technicians, how much increased revenue would we expect with full deployment? (Taylor)

The current vacancy rate is approximately 20% (12.54 out of 61.04 FTE). Filling of these vacancies would likely result in a commensurate increase in revenues from parking fines.

9) Which (and how many) parking management vacancies will be filled by end of fiscal

year? How much will these additional roles improve parking enforcement in East Oakland Neighborhoods and Commercial corridors? How much with these newly filled positions improve the situation? What are the performance metrics by which DOT's success will be measured? (Taylor)

Currently, there are no vacant management positions in DOT’s Parking Enforcement Unit. Since January of 2018 the unit has been operating without one of its four Parking Enforcement Supervisors. In response to these challenges, the unit has taken measures such as developing and implementing an Acting Supervisor Development Program, which provides an opportunity for Parking Control Technicians to gain valuable supervisor experience. Staff recognizes that effective management and front-line supervision is critically important to parking enforcement. Parking Enforcement promotes compliance and the safe, efficient use of limited curb space by residents, commuters and visitors by issuing parking citations. When staff encounters a parking violation in the field, he or she is expected to issue a citation. In addition to covering enforcement beats and street sweeping maps. Parking Enforcement also provides dispatch services. Dispatch is available Monday - Friday, 9 AM to 5 PM (closed for lunch between



12:30 - 1 PM). With adequate coverage, PCTs are often on site within 12 to 15 minutes of a constituent call for enforcement. Parking Enforcement works with OPW’s Street Sweeping Unit on a daily basis to coordinate resources and supports OPD’s Abandoned Vehicle Unit by redirecting requests from the community to the 311 Call Center or Oak311 mobile app.

The ultimate measure of Parking Enforcement success is compliance, which can be determined by a combination of metrics such as citations issued and dispatch requests. These metrics involve diverse systems and depend on many factors such as total PCT-hours spent enforcing and community awareness of and use of dispatch services. DOT staff are working internally with ITD and HR and with the City’s parking citation system vendor (Conduent) to develop efficient means of capturing and reporting compliance and other key performance indicators.

10) Please let us know if any developer Impact Fees have been returned/reimbursed to developers for any reason after the first half of the fees had already been remitted to the city. If so, please state the dollar amount of returned impact fees over the past two years. In the May 15, 2019 FY 19-21 Budget Development Questions/Responses #2, response #11 states “It is also possible that a development falls through and the assessed revenues due at the issuance of a certificate of occupancy are never actually paid to the City and the revenues already received at the time of issuance of a building permit are required to be refunded.” Chapter 15.72 of the OMC provides that applicants for development projects must pay applicable impact fees unless exempt under that chapter. Section 15.72.080 further provides (1) that the City Administrator may (discretionary) grant reduction, waiver, and/or appeal of the fees under five enumerated scenarios and (2) that such reduction, waiver and/or appeal requires a written application “made no later than the date of application for the building permit for the development project on a form provided by the City.” Has every instance of a returned impact fee been preceded by the required application filed within the required time frame? Have there been instances when fees were returned for any reason other than one of the five scenarios enumerated in OMC Section 15.72.080.A? Please provide the dollar amount of fees returned for each of the five scenarios listed in 15.72.080.A. (Kalb)

Section 15.72.080 does not specifically address reimbursements of Affordable Housing Impact Fees. Rather, it provides that an applicant for a building permit, prior to receiving the building permit, may apply for an exemption, reduction, or waiver of the Affordable Housing Impact Fee. The possibility of a refund due to non-development of a property is not the same as a waiver. That said, staff has not identified any reimbursed Affordable Housing Impact Fees at this time, though a more detailed evaluation of the City’s impact fees is ongoing.

11) How much Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) from Short-Term Residential Rentals (STRR)

are we expected to receive per fiscal year in the FY19-21 budget cycle? How many STRR companies are cooperating with the City of Oakland to make sure we receive the taxes we are owed based on our existing required TOT? Please share specifics. What are the budget implications and opportunities if we earmark 25% of the TOT from STRRs per year to our Affordable Housing Trust Fund? (Kalb)

Staff cannot divulge this information as there is not a sufficient number of taxpayers in the category. California Government Code Section 6254(i) exempts from disclosure information



required from any taxpayer in connection with the collection of local taxes that are received in confidence. This question suggests that by disclosing the aggregate amount paid by all STRRs, this will not result in the disclosure of the amount paid by any individual taxpayer and, therefore, is not governed by section 6254(i). However, at this time, the City has not secured the agreement of ALL STRRs that operate within the City to collect and pay the transient occupancy tax due. The City continues to pursue such an understanding with other major operators, whose business model is to collect payment on behalf of the host. In addition to the major players in this market, there are a couple of very small STRRs that also operate in the City which do collect and pay the transient occupancy tax due. As a result, to disclose the aggregate amount paid by all STRRs as requested would effectively disclose the amount of transient occupancy tax paid by an individual taxpayer, which, as noted, is exempt from disclosure under the state law.

12) Please identify which city job classifications are considered substantially below

market in compensation, and how much money is being set aside in the proposed budget to bring up the salaries for these classifications. If this is a large number of classifications, please list the top 25 miscellaneous classifications that the Administration would want to prioritize in terms of bringing those positions closer to the market salary levels taking into consideration recruitment needs and retention challenges. (Kalb)

This information is not readily available and requires conducting a market research of comparable job classifications at other municipalities. Typically, the proposed budget includes salary adjustments based on anticipated wage increases in negotiated MOUs. Additionally, each department periodically examines their staffing model/capacity, and based on a host of factors, including service delivery needs and recruitment/retention challenges, proposes to either create a new classification that better suits their program needs and/or to augment existing classification’s salary table to bring up compensation to a market level based on their research.

13) How much is being added to the proposed FY19-21 budget (above the baseline) for vegetation management and wildfire prevention? Please itemize and distinguish between on-going and one-time expenditures. (Kalb)

The FY 2018-19 Adopted Midcycle Budget contained $1.07 million in wildfire prevention services. The FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget contains $1.10 million in wildfire prevention services in one time funds each year. The proposed budget also contains $100,000 each year for vegetation management plan implementation.

14) My office receives numerous complaints that our parking restrictions are not being enforced in many neighborhoods that are within a residential parking permit zone. If we were to create and hire one or two additional parking control technicians effective January 1, 2020, would that lead to a net increase in revenue for the city? What would be the cost to do this in this 2-year budget (effective Jan. 2020) and what would be the expected revenue? (Kalb)

Please see the response to Question 8. The cost of 1.0 FTE Parking Control Technician is $120,078 in FY 2019-20 and $124,432 in FY 2020-21. While the addition of new parking enforcement staff would yield additional revenue through parking fines, it would likely be sufficient to cover the costs of the parking enforcement program (including the Parking



Control Technician, hearing officers, parking citation assistance center staff, etc.). We would not anticipate a significant increase in unrestricted revenue above the amount required for cost recovery.

15) Please provide a list of all the budgeted non-sworn City positions that have been vacant continuously for 5 or more years as of April 30, 2019, and what would be the savings in the budget if 10% of these positions (as determined by the City Administrator) were frozen for two years effective July 1, 2019? What service impacts if any would this have on city services. (Kalb)

A table below lists positions that have been vacant for five or more years, along with proposed budget for each position. Departments often utilize vacancy savings to fund temporary employees to meet their workload. As of May 2019, 2 of 7 listed positions here are currently linked to fund temporary staff. Of note, these are not General Purpose Fund positions.

DEPT JOB CLASSIFICATION

TITLE FTE

VACANCY DATE

FY20 FY21 Status

OPW Auto Equipment Mechanic 1.00

30-NOV-2012 167,523 173,310

Encumbered – linked to TCSE

OPW Custodian 1.00 21-JUN-

2014 105,610 109,260

Recruitment Plan in Progress

OPW Electrical Engineer II 1.00 16-JUL-2010 244,836 253,291 Inactive

OPW Environmental Program Specialist 1.00

22-JUN-2014 196,201 202,974


OPW Stationary Engineer 1.00 14-MAR-

2014 173,929 179,939

Approved (pending HR Assignment)

OPRYD Recreation Specialist I, PPT 0.48

12-APR-2013 36,014 37,314

Encumbered – linked to PT

LIBRARY Museum Guard 1.00 20-JUN-

2014 86,423 89,529


Total 6.48 1,010,536 1,045,617

16) Does the proposed budget and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) back-fill the

capital funds, as the Council and the Administration promised in writing to the public and to the East Bay Regional Park District, for the Caldecott Trail project (originally funded by EBRPD Measure WW) that were diverted for another, ‘shovel-ready’ project last year? Please identify where in the proposed Budget and CIP documents this is described. (Kalb)

The FY 2019-21 Proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget includes $486,300 in FY 2019-20 for the Caldecott Trailhead Improvement project. This $486,300 is funded using the Measure KK bond proceeds. For more detail on this CIP project, please refer to page A-24 in the FY 2019-21 Proposed CIP Budget document. (https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/FY-2019-21-Capital-Improvement-Program.pdf)

https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/FY-2019-21-Capital-Improvement-Program.pdf

https://cao-94612.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/FY-2019-21-Capital-Improvement-Program.pdf



17) Why are Park Maintenance positions singled out for substantial cuts (freezing of FTEs)? If seven of these positions were restored in the Budget, what other currently vacant GPF-funded positions would the Administration choose (however reluctantly) to freeze to maintain a balanced budget? (Kalb)

Park maintenance positions are not being singled out. These positions reside in the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District (LLAD) fund, which has a major structural deficit. Since the LLAD’s inception, its revenue has not increased annually to keep up with increases in operating expenses, and this has resulted in the continued growing deficit in the fund. A new revenue measure is necessary to close this ongoing structural deficit in the fund and to provide much needed improvements in the City’s parks, facilities, grounds, and programs. Staff are not able to identify any other positions to be frozen in lieu of these vacancies.

18) How/where is the spending of Housing Impact Fees reflected in the proposed Budget

and CIP documents? (Kalb)

Please reference responses to Questions 8, 9, and 11 in the Budget Questions–Responses Memo #2.

19) In 2015, the city established a joint partnership with OUSD to hire social worker case

managers (two hired by the City and two hired by OUSD) to work with families to reduce chronic absenteeism in our OUSD district elementary schools. To facilitate timely hiring of staff for this program, it makes sense to grant the funds for our half of this partnership to the school district contingent on OUSD keeping their positions active and filled. Where in the Proposed Budget Document does it show the funds (sufficient for two FTEs) being authorized for granting to OUSD specifically as a match to reduce Chronic Absenteeism in OUSD District Elementary Schools? The City had previously (in FY15-17 and FY17-19) identified our portion of this program to be funded half from our on-going funds and half from our one-time funds. Is that still the breakdown in the proposed Budget? - (Kalb)

There were originally 2.0 FTEs; however, 1.0 FTE was funded with one-time funds and is no longer budgeted. Funding for the remaining 1.0 FTE was reprogrammed as contract O&M dollars to OUSD for the chronic absenteeism program of approximately $139,405 in FY 2019-20 and $144,507 in FY 2020-21.

20) In years, past, the City Council and Police Chiefs have asserted that some positions

at OPD filled by sworn personnel could be filled by qualified civilian personnel. Over the past several years, a small number of positions at OPD have been civilianized. Does the proposed budget document assume that any of our currently budgeted sworn positions at OPD will be civilianized? Does the Chief have an up-to-date list of positions currently occupied by sworn personnel that she believes would be appropriate for civilianizing? If so, please provide it. If not, why not? – we didn’t. (Kalb)

Please see the response to Question 5 above.



21) What amount of Fund 2159 (carry-forward and FY19-21 proposed budget) consists of

HEAP grant funds and is any further revenue of this type anticipated during FY 19-21? If so, what is the range that is expected to be received by our city from the state? (Kalb)

$8.9 million in HEAP carryforward funds is included in the FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget. Any future funding from the state during FY 2019-21 cannot be reliably projected at this time with the State Legislature still reviewing the Governor’s Budget. Once the FY 2019-20 Budget Act is enacted and final HEAP grant numbers become available, staff will return to the Council with more concrete information.

22) How many FTEs are budgeted for the Inspector General’s Office in OPD compared to how many total/proposed positions are in the Budget for the Office of Inspector General within the Police Commission? (Kalb)

OPD Inspector General FTE

Lieutenant of Police (PERS).PS152 1

Police Officer (PERS).PS168 1

Police Performance Auditor.AP210 3

Police Pgrm & Perf Audit Sup.AP291 1

Police Records Specialist.SS165 1

Total 7

Civilian Inspector General (Police Commission) FTE

Civilian Inspector General 1

Police Pgrm & Perf Audit Sup.AP291 1

Total 2 23) How much money is being allocated in the proposed Budget to help feed those most

in need (not just homeless residents, but all those who are unable to put food on the table for themselves and their family)? How does this compare to our past commitment to funding hunger programs in Oakland? (Kalb)

The FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget includes $2.6 million per year to fund various food programs citywide. Specifically, there is funding for Meals on Wheels of approximately $150,000 per year and $200,000 per year for the Hunger Program that provides food to Oakland residents all year. In addition, the proposed budget also includes new funding of $150,000 per year to fund a Program Analyst II position to support the expanded food service programs and O&M of $400,000 per year to support OPL, OPRYD and HSD food programs for children and youth in the Measure HH (SSBT) fund. Furthermore, it adds funding in the SSBT fund of approximately $530,000 per year for the Summer Food Service Program, which delivers free and nutritious meals to children ages 18 and under throughout the City. The proposed budget also maintains grant funding from the Department of



Agriculture of $676,000 per year. The overall allocations for food programs in the proposed budget will increase by 46% compared to the FY 2018-19 Adopted Midcycle Budget.

24) Should/can we include funds in an adopted budget that would only be realized if a future ballot measure was passed by the voters in 2020? Has an adopted City of Oakland budget ever in the past 25 years budgeted for funds to be derived from a future ballot measure not yet passed or even approved for the ballot? (Kalb)

The Proposed and Adopted Budgets only include revenues that can reasonably be relied upon. Staff believes that the City has not adopted a budget including funds derived from an unknown future ballot measure. Staff strongly recommends against including speculative revenues of any type in the adopted budget especially revenues that would be contingent on the approval of 2/3rds of the electorate.

25) How many Fire Academies and how many Police Academies are proposed for funding for the FY19-21 time-frame? Will this amount keep us on track to fill already-budgeted sworn vacancies? (Kalb)

The Proposed Budget Contains 1 Fire Academy and 2 Police Academies per fiscal year. These provide spaces for 30 new firefighter and firefighter paramedics and roughly 80 new police officers per fiscal year.

26) How many Temporary Part-Time (TPT) employees are currently working for the Oakland Public Library? How many TPTs are budgeted to work for the Library in the proposed FY19-21 budget? How do these numbers compare to two years ago and four years ago? Are there funds identified in the Budget (if so, how much?) to convert current TPT positions into Permanent Part-Time (PPT) positions? (Kalb)

Below is a list showing budgeted FTEs by temporary part-time classifications specific to the Library from FY 2015-16 to 2020-21. Some of these positions have been converted to either permanent part-time or full-time positions over the years, in addition to 54.2 new full-time and permanent part-time positions that have been added during FY 2018-19, funded with Measure Q revenues.

27) If the Council modifies the General Fund allocations attributable to the Measure HH tax revenue in a manner that reduces HH allocations to OPRYD, what would be the

Job FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

Librarian I, PT.AP216 4.13 4.13 4.38 4.38 2.95 2.95

Librarian II, PT.AP219 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70

Librarian, Senior, PT.AP229 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38

Library Aide, PT.SS138 40.75 40.75 40.42 40.42 39.51 39.51

Library Assistant, PT.SS139 10.71 10.71 9.37 9.37 8.06 8.06

Literacy Assistant, PT.AP232 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 - -

Museum Guard, PT.PS158 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88 1.88

Program Analyst I, PT.AP361 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.50 0.50

Student Trainee, PT.SS195 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 - -

Grand Total 60.35 60.35 58.93 58.93 53.98 53.98



impact in terms of youth program services levels at our parks and recreations centers? Would additional General Purpose Fund funded vacant positions need to be frozen for at least two years? If so, how many and which positions would The Administration choose to freeze? Please consider two scenarios: One that reduces the HH allocation to OPRYD by one-third and one that reduces the HH allocations by one-tenth. (Kalb)

In the Mayor’s proposed budget, OPRYD is to receive $12.20 million in Measure HH (SSBT) funding, including 41.62 FTEs. The positions are partially funded from the GPF. Eliminating or reducing funding would require additional GPF funding or elimination of positions. These positions are intended to provide the following services:

$0.51 million (4.02 FTEs) for Oakland Summer “Town Camp” to provide youth summer programming; these positions (Recreation Supervisors, Center Directors, Program Directors and Recreation Leader Leaders) are primarily funded from the GPF.

o Summer program impacted include boating, nature, overnight camps, leadership skills and develop self-confidence in a safe and inclusive environment.

$1.02 million (9.96 FTEs) for Aquatics Activities to provide swimming and water safety to Oakland’s youth; these positions (Recreation Supervisor, Program Director, Lifeguards, Pool Managers, Water Safety Instructors) are partially funded from the GPF.

o Aquatics programs impacted include Junior Lifeguard, private swimming lessons, special needs swim lessons to include introduction and advanced swim lessons.

$1.73 million (19.43 FTEs) for Sports to allow Oakland’s youth to participate in basketball, football and other sports activities. If funding is eliminated or reduced, the positions (Recreation Supervisor, Program Director, and Recreation Leader, Sports officials, etc.) would require GPF funding.

o Sports programs impacted include Oakland Neighborhood Basketball League for boys and girls competitive leagues; recreation center leagues that encourage fitness; co-ed woman’s and men’s softball and other adult leagues.

$0.56 million (4.75 FTEs) for the East Oakland Sports Center to provide fitness, performance/dance and aquatic/pool activities. If funding is eliminated or reduced, the positions (Recreation General Supervisor, Program Directors, and Recreation Leader, etc.) would require GPF funding.

o Eliminating permanent positions at the East Oakland Sports Center would impact fitness training, aquatics, and performance/fitness dance programs.

$0.50 million (3.22 FTEs) for Administrative Support [Assist. Director; Management Assistant; Prog. Planner (Transfer In); Prog. Analyst I (Transfer In)]. If funding is eliminated or reduced, the positions would require GPF funding.

o The Assist. Director is proposed at 0.22 FTE funded from SSBT and 0.88 FTE funded from GPF; the Program Planner and Program Analyst are transfers from the Human Services Department to help oversee SSBT programs; the Management Assistant would help administration functions.

$3.88 million (0.00 FTE) for Internal Service Costs; Facilities & Park Maintenance.

$4.00 million (0.00 FTE) for Third Party Grants (Non-Profits).



33% Reduction Scenario Assuming that the Third-Party Grants ($4 million) and Internal Services Costs ($3.88 million) are not included in the one-third reduction, a 33 percent reduction would result in eliminating $1.43 million in programming funding. To meet this elimination, OPRYD would likely:

($0.50 million; 3.22 FTEs) Eliminate Administrative Support for programs and activities. Because some positions are partially supported by the GPF, GPF funding would need to be increased to support the positions or eliminate the positions.

($0.51 million; 4.02 FTEs) Eliminate Oakland Summer Town Camp positions supporting programs and activities. Because positions are partially supported by the GPF, GPF funding would need to be increased to support the positions or eliminate the positions. Eliminating these positions may result in closing recreation centers and programs.

($0.56 million; 4.75 FTEs) Eliminate permanent position at the East Oakland Sports Center. Eliminating these positions may result in closing the East Oakland Sports Center.

10% Reduction Scenario Assuming that the Third-Party Grants ($4 million) and Internal Services Costs ($3.88 million) are not included, a 10 percent reduction would result in eliminating $0.43 million in program support funding. To meet this elimination, OPRYD would:

($0.50 million; 3.22 FTEs) Eliminate Administrative Support for programs and activities. Because some positions are partially supported by the GPF, GPF funding would need to be increased to support the positions or eliminate the positions.

28) Please list proposed FY19-21 funding for façade grants by area of the City (downtown, etc.). Please breakdown the amount for each area by fund. (Kalb)

The proposed budget does not include any new funding for the Façade and Tenant Improvement Programs (“FIP” and “TIP”). Prior to the dissolution of the Oakland Redevelopment Agency, the programs were funded from Community Development Block Grants (“CDBG”) and former Redevelopment Agency (“Agency”) tax increment revenue. Under dissolution law, staff was permitted to complete those FIP and TIP projects that were subject to agreements executed prior to the dissolution. Staffing for these efforts has been funded from the post-dissolution Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (“RPTTF”) as reflected in the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency’s Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (“ROPS”). These projects have since been completed and staff costs are therefore no longer eligible for reimbursement from the RPTTF. Each former Redevelopment Project Area also has residual bond proceeds that can be used within that Project Area’s geographical boundaries on eligible projects. The remaining bond proceeds that are designated for the FIP and TIP programs are in the following amounts:

Downtown (Central District) - $368,000 for the Historic Façade Program and $615,000 in the Tenant Improvement Program

Broadway/MacArthur/San Pablo Redevelopment Project Area - $166,000 for the FIP and $79,000 for the TIP

Central City East Project area - $492,000 for the FIP and $390,000 for the TIP

Coliseum Project area - $435,000 for the FIP and $540,000 for the TIP



29) Please show a breakdown of the budget for our senior centers and for all senior

services housed within Department of Human Services. (Kalb) A table below summarizes all the funding associated with the senior centers included in the FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget:

30) How much is in the proposed budget to facilitate our required Council Redistricting process in 2020-21? Please itemize and describe how the Administration came to this dollar amount. (Kalb) - Michelle

The FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget includes $57,000 for the Council redistricting process ($41,000 in FY 2019-20 and $16,000 in FY 2020-21). Overall total budget can increase to $73,000, if necessary, with a carryforward of current year’s $16,000. Numbers were based on initial estimates for supplies, materials, and other costs associated with a typical redistricting process and do not include staff costs.

31) Where in the Proposed Policy Budget or proposed Capital Improvement Program document does it say how much money is being allocated for Storm water Trash Reduction. What new expenditures (one-time and on-going) above current ongoing activities are being budgeted for FY19-21 to achieve substantial progress toward



compliance with requirements set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board? How much money is being allocated in FY19-21 for trash capture devices? Please delineate between the small devices and large devices. (Kalb)

Funding towards illegal dumping and homeless encampment abatement, street sweeping, and implementation of the excess litter fee all provide trash reduction credit. There is no specific CIP project funding in the FY 2019–21 budget allocated for the installation of trash capture devices. Instead, the City will leverage existing bond funding, transportation funding, and other capital funding to incorporate the installation of full trash capture devices in capital projects. On June 12, 2017, City Council approved Resolution No. 86773 C.M.S. for the identification of Capital Improvement Projects funded by the General Obligation Bond (Measure KK) including the adoption of a Trash Capture Transportation Map that provided locations for transportation projects in high trash generation areas to ensure that those transportation projects will incorporate full trash capture devices, as appropriate. For example, DOT projects will install approximately 1,250 small trash capture devices at a cost of up to $3.1 million as part of the 3 Year Paving Program. The City is also conducting feasibility studies at 4 locations for the installation of one or more large trash capture devices to be funded by Caltrans through a Cooperative Implementation Agreement. Under the Cooperative Implementation Agreement (in development) Caltrans would fund the planning, design, and construction of added large trash capture devices and the City would be responsible for ongoing operations and maintenance of the devices.

32) What are the emergency call response times for each Area (1-5). What have response

time trends been for each of the past 5 years? What changes have been made to staffing and resource allocations to reduce response times in 2019-2021 Fiscal Year? What is the target response time in 2019-20? In 2020-21? (Taylor)

OPD is not able to measure the response times by area with the current Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) technology. New technology being installed in 2020 will make this information available in 2021. For the past 24 months: The average City-wide response time for Priority 1 calls is 7 min 59 seconds The average City-wide response time for Priority 2 calls is 1 hour 11 minutes OPD watch commanders share resources when possible to reduce response times, especially during periods that draw a large amount of resources to an area such as a shooting, sideshow, or serious accident. OPD is drafting together an RFP request for a performance-based staffing study to review staffing allocation and options for call response and case closure. During this process, we will explore the operational and financial consequences of various staffing configurations and response time goals.



*Historical data is for 24 months 33) Please describe and itemize our current and proposed expenditures for our 911

dispatch operation. What monies are being allocated specifically to help reduce 911 hold times? (Kalb)

There are several projects underway to reduce 911 hold times. Over the past year OPD has been successful in hiring new dispatchers and several are currently in training. It takes about 8 months from hire to working solo at a dispatch terminal. As the newly hired dispatchers fill positions, the call wait times should be reduced somewhat. In anticipation of reaching our authorized FTE count, OPD worked with Federal Engineering, an emergency dispatch consultant, to perform a staffing study. Based on this study, to improve dispatch service, training and reduce the amount of mandatory overtime the dispatchers are working, we need to hire 25 additional full time employees. There are phone upgrades planned for the non-emergency lines later this summer that should help with reducing repeat calls to the emergency lines, and potentially help to reduce wait times.




MEMORANDUM


PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit to the full City Council and public, responses to questions raised by City Councilmembers related to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-21 Proposed Biennial Budget. To the extent additional information becomes available on any of the responses below, updates will be provided. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES #6 1) Please describe and itemize our current and proposed expenditures for our 911

dispatch operation. What monies are being allocated specifically to help reduce 911 hold times? (Kalb)

A table below shows the current and proposed budget for the City’s 911 dispatch operation.

2) Automobile Speeding is a problem along many of our streets in Oakland. This

presents serious risks to residents throughout the city. What is being done to strengthen enforcement of speed limit laws? How many officers are in the OPD Traffic division in the current fiscal year (FY18-19) and how many are proposed to be in the OPD Traffic division in FY19-20 and FY20-21? (Kalb)

OPD currently have six (6) Speed Trailers for the entire City to calm traffic speed. In terms of personnel, there are 29.0 FTEs proposed in FY 2019-20 and FY 2020-21 (1.0 Lieutenant,

Budget CategoryFY 2018-19

BudgetFY 2019-20

BudgetFY 2020-21

BudgetEmployee Personnel Service Expenditures 14,884,768 14,724,336 15,226,392

Supply and Material Expenditures 5,497 37,997 37,997 Service Expenditures - 5,000 5,000

Contract Service Expenditures 2,000 42,000 42,000 Travel and Education Expenditures 4,120 - -

Internal Service / Work Order Expenditures 600,868 798,327 807,221 Other Expenditures and Project Budget Accounts 41,162 45,258 46,164

Grand Total 15,538,415 15,652,918 16,164,774


HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Subject: FY 2019-21 Budget Development Questions/Responses #6 Date: June 20, 2019 Page 2

4.0 Sergeants and 24.0 Police Officers) in the Traffic Division. Currently, these positions are mostly filled, except for two Sergeant positions (1 retired in May, 2019). OPD is working with DOT to have additional speed surveys completed in the City. In addition, the department has recently purchased 20 LIDAR Guns for speed enforcement. One of the programming adjustments include training Patrol Officers not assigned to Traffic on how to use the LIDAR Guns, which will increase speed enforcement throughout the city.

3) How much money is our city spending on Homeless Prevention? This questions includes private sources of funds (Keep Oakland Housed) and City public funds. Please specify the specific programs being funded. How does this match up with the information on prevention presented by the Human Services Department in their May 15, 2019 agenda report on efforts to address homelessness? (Kalb)

The City’s Department of Human Services budget includes almost $320,000 in county grant funding to prevent Oakland households from becoming homeless or to rapidly re-house those that became homeless. The Department of Housing & Community Development budget include $2.2 million for anti-displacement program in the current fiscal year and any remaining amount will carryforward until funds are exhausted. Furthermore, the proposed council amendments include appropriations of $1.7 million ($0.7 million in FY 2019-20 and $1.0 million in FY 2020-21) for anti-displacement efforts. The City has a partnership with the San Francisco Foundation for the Keep Oakland Housed Program, which provides funding (approximately $8 million) for various anti-displacement services for Oakland residents, including legal assistance, emergency financial assistance and case management services. Although the City does not run the program, the City is a collaborative partner in the program in that the Mayor’s Office provides strategic input and helps promote the program.

4) Please fill in the follow table and add additional columns and narrative if necessary. Please identify which one or two GPF revenue source(s) had the highest percentage under-projections (vs. actuals) in FY15-16, FY16-17, FY17-18, and FY18-19. You may also remind us of under-projections of GPF expenditures for those same fiscal years. (Kalb)

Please refer to the supplemental report from the Finance Department for a detail analysis of the City’s FY 2019-21 revenue projections for June 24, 2019.

5) Please describe how the new tiered real estate transfer tax (RETT) impacted the

projected revenue for the RETT category. Based on actual revenue history over the past five years, the recent 3rd quarter report, and the new tiered RETT tax structure, would it be reasonable for the Council to add $1,250,000 in each fiscal year to the RETT revenue projections. If the Council made that adjustment, please specify in detail the implications in terms of required allocations pursuant to the city’s Rainy Day Fund policy? (Kalb)

No, all forecasts already incorporate the effects of the new rate structure. The FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget includes $20 million in RETT revenues from large transactions ($5 million or more). While it is possible that there could be additional large property sales, they are unpredictable and should not be relied upon. The City’s Consolidated Fiscal Policy defines


“Excess” RETT formulaically. Any RETT revenue that exceeds 15% of total local GPF tax revenues (including RETT) is considered one-time. The “excess” RETT must be used as follows: 25% into the Vital Services Stabilization Fund; 25% toward long-term obligations; and 50% for one-time purposes.

6) My understanding is that the identified vacancy rate in the proposed Budget for Non-sworn employees averages out across departments to 4% city-wide. Is this accurate for both GPF and for all funds? How much money would be freed up in the GPF budget IF the non-sworn average vacancy rate across departments city wide was increased to 5%? (Kalb)

This question has a flawed assumption that increasing the vacancy credit would “free up” appropriations to be used for other purposes. It does not. This action has no impact on a department’s actual expenditures. Rather, it would only reduce their available appropriation, resulting in increased levels of overspending on personnel. In order to manage to the lower appropriations, departments would need to keep more positions vacant (contrary to City Council priorities) and/or reduce service levels. If the vacancy credit was increased by 1.0% in the General Purpose Fund (GPF) it would result in a reduction in the amount of personnel appropriations of $1.52 million in FY 2019-20 and $1.60 million in FY 2020-21 across all departments. If the increased vacancy factor was in place for FY 2018-19, rather than a projected GPF available ending fund balance of $720,000 as shown in the Q3 revenue & expenditure report, the City would be facing a nearly $800,000 deficit. The FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget includes a vacancy credit of 4.0% for non-sworn positions (civilians) across all funds with the following exceptions: Mayor’s Office; Public Ethics Commission; City Clerk’s Office; and, All Elected Officials (City Councilmembers, Auditor, City Attorney, Mayor).

Again, for the reasons outlined above, staff does not recommend adjusting the vacancy credit.

7) Can any or all of the 11 new Fire Prevention positions proposed in the

Administration’s Budget be eligible to be paid from fund 2415 instead of the GPF? If so, how many and which new FTEs? (Kalb)

No, the Development Services Fund is not an eligible source. The positions are cost recovery pursuant to the Council approved Master Fee Schedule for FY 2019-20.

8) Are there some one-time expenditures in the proposed Budget that are proposed to

be paid with on-going GPF revenue? If so, please list those or tell us where we can clearly find those details in the budget document. (Kalb)

The FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget for the General Purpose Fund (GPF) does not use one-time revenues to cover ongoing expenses as prohibited/restricted by the Consolidated Fiscal Policy (CFP). The FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget has one-time revenues of $4.1


million and one-time expenses of $4.2 million in the GPF in FY 2019-20 (Year 1). This means that approximately $0.1 million of one-time expenditures in the GPF are funded with ongoing revenues. All of the one-time expenditures in the GPF are called out in the FY 2019-21 Proposed Budget beginning on page E-7. A few of the notable one-time expenditures include: One-time O&M for the Police Commission of $0.1 million; One-time Wildfire Prevention Funding of $1.10 million; One-time funding for the vegetation management plan implementation of $0.1

million; One-time grant for OUSD for Restorative Justice, Foster Care, Libraries of $1.2

million; and, One-time funding for job training and preparation of $0.25 million.

9) Please provide the breakdown of CIP scoring for the projects added in the Council

amendments [Kaplan] The table below provides the rank and score of the CIP projects added in the Councilmember budget amendments. The scores for all unfunded CIP projects are listed in the FY 2019-21 Proposed Capital Improvement Program on page B-1 which can be accessed here: www.oaklandca.gov/budget.

Project Name In Unfunded List? Rank

Total Score out of 100

Points Awarded

Dimond Tennis Courts [1] Yes 21 of 181 62.0 East Oakland Sports Complex [2] Yes 80 of 181 33.0 Public toilets for Madison Park and Concordia Park No n/a n/a Madison Park Irrigation Fix and Upgrade No n/a n/a Allendale Rec Center Tot Lot [3] No n/a n/a Joaquin Miller Community Center [4] Yes 83 of 181 32.5 Antioch Court Yes 91 of 181 31.0 East Oakland Beautification & Streetscaping No n/a n/a

[1] Project cost was $600,000 while Council amendment includes $300,000 (scope may need to be revised)

[2] CIP project cost was $3,650,000 while Council amendment includes $2,000,000 (scope may need to be revised)

[3] Separately funded through CIP allocation in Measure HH in FY 2018-19

[4] Reflects scoring for Joaquin Miller Center improvements with a cost of $2,600,000. Council amendment includes $170,000 for fountain upgrades only

10) Please provide additional details on the use of fund balance for FY 2018-19 GPF

Project Carry Forward (CF) totaling $33.04 million. (Bas)

Please see Attachment A for a list of GPF project and encumbrance carryforward appropriations by department. Project and encumbrance carryforwards are previously approved and committed project appropriations and purchases that are obligated by contracts. It is important to note that project expenditures do not coincide with the fiscal year. Many projects are multi-year in nature and cross fiscal years. These project


appropriations are approved by the City Council via standalone resolution or through the biennial budget process. Caution should be used when reviewing the year-to-date spending of carryforwards as many invoices get processed at the end of the fiscal year for services already rendered. After the close of each fiscal year, the Finance Department submits a list of eligible carryforwards to all departments for evaluation. Departments may request to retain some or all carryforwards when such balances are deemed essential to the delivery of city projects, programs and services or if the liquidation of such balances would be in violation of legislative or legal requirements. At the close of FY 2017-18, $33.04 million was carried forward to FY 2018-19 in the GPF. A significant portion of these funds were either encumbered by contract, spent, or are restricted by grant agreements.


Respectfully submitted, /s/

KATANO KASAINE Director of Finance Attachments (1)

- FY 2018-19 GPF Carry Forward and Encumbrance List

FY 2018-19 GPF PROJECT AND ENCUMBRANCE CARRY FORWARD Attachment A

Page 1 of 4

Department and Project

Carryforward

AmountEncumberedby Contract

YTDSpent

(6/10/19) Committed CommentsCapital Improvement Projects 1,268,392 297,095 202,897 768,400 Insurance proceeds for Mosswood rebuild

City Administrator 4,162,569 212,972 1,613,188 2,336,409DISPARITY STUDY 260,887 107,673 89,828 63,387EQUAL OPP PRGM-ONE TIME FUNDS 13,059 0 0 13,059PUBLIC INFORMATION-MEDIA PROJ 104,887 0 104,887 0WEBSITE REDESIGN 15,000 0 0 15,000Encumbrances 150,693 122 150,571 0Cannabis Equity Loan Program 3,612,392 102,265 1,267,902 2,242,224 Proposed for programming in Council amendments in FY 2019-21Animal Services 5,651 2,912 0 2,739

City Attorney 4,141 0 4,141 0Encumbrances 4,141 0 4,141 0

City Auditor 988 0 988 0Encumbrances 988 0 988 0

City Clerk 821,972 5,605 816,367 0AGENDA MANAGEMENT 1,711 0 1,711 0CITYWIDE RECORDS MGT 123,553 3,945 119,608 0ELECTION FUNDING 692,941 1,660 691,281 0Encumbrances 3,766 0 3,766 0

City Council 131,521 0 31,900 99,621D6 GRANTS EVENTS PRGMS 66,710 0 0 66,710FY06-07 CNCL PRIORITIES-DIST 2 32,911 0 0 32,911Encumbrances 31,900 0 31,900 0

Department of Transportation 2,174,682 543,599 1,631,083 0Encumbrances 2,174,682 543,599 1,631,083 0

Department of Violence Prevention 45,854 0 45,854 0Urbn Stratgies Cncl-DVP Conslt 45,854 0 45,854 0

Economic and Workforce Development Department 509,301 25,915 118,618 364,768BUS IMPV DIST-NCR 1010-C138410 24,770 0 0 24,770BUSINESS ATTRAC 1010-P58520 100,000 0 0 100,000FORN TRD ZN 1010-P389610 26,863 7,863 1,500 17,500MERCH ORG-SHP OAK 1010-P275310 8,229 0 1,500 6,729MURALS-GREEN WALLS 215,770 0 0 215,770Encumbrances 110,242 18,051 92,190 0


Page 2 of 4

Department and ProjectCarryforward


YTDSpent

(6/10/19) Committed CommentsYouth Employment 23,428 0 23,428 0

Finance Department 2,296,221 266,768 1,824,054 205,400PUBLIC BNKING FEASBLTY STUDY 75,000 0 45,000 30,000 Proposed for programming in Council amendments in FY 2019-21Encumbrances 1,309,769 0 1,309,769 0 Citation assistance collections and multi-space meter contractsCannabis 104,048 0 104,048 0Financial Systems Contracts/Support 807,404 266,768 365,236 175,400 Obligated for PBCS (budget software) per Council Resolution (June 10)

Fire Department 1,044,928 0 788,811 256,117ACCELA PLATFORM C501910 197,013 0 197,013 0AFG WELLNESS GRT-MH G475420 438 0 0 438Vegetation Management 58,856 0 0 58,856Encumbrances 591,798 0 591,798 0Cannabis 196,823 0 0 196,823 Fire Plan Check/Inspections

Housing and Community Development Department 925,000 0 0 925,000BUS RAPID TRANSIT 1010 810,000 0 0RAP SOFTWARE PROG 115,000 0 0

810,000 Obligated for business assistance per Council resolution 115,000

Human Resources Management Department 532,760 5,835 135,431 391,494BACKGROUND CHECK BACKLOG 200,790 0 0 200,790CITY-WIDE TRAINING 94,537 4,483 6,799 83,256RECRUITMENT SUPPORT SERVICES 160,305 1,353 51,504 107,448Encumbrances 77,128 0 77,128 0

Human Services Department 3,135,845 227,496 1,414,248 1,494,102CTY-CNTY NEIGHB INIT 31,565 30,002 1,563 0CTY-CNTY RNTRY JOB 350,000 0 0 350,000 Proposed for programming in Council amendments in FY 2019-21FY1617 OUTRCH SEXEXPLTD MINRS 60,978 39,920 21,058 0GPF HIGH PRIORITY FY1718 80,089 0 0 80,089GPF HUNGER PRGM FY1718 35,420 19,138 13,017 3,265GPF OUTREACH FY1718 12,913 0 3,750 9,163GPF SECOND HENRY HRMSC 254,382 0 254,382 0SVCS SXLY EXPL CHILDREN 55,000 27,500 27,500 0YOUTH TOGETHER 87,619 78,950 8,669 0Encumbrances 696,175 0 696,175 0Senior Centers Operating / Retained Rental 281,195 26,361 240,228 14,606Emergency Housing / Homelessness 86,354 251 60,890 25,212Grant Matching / Subsidies 1,104,156 5,374 87,016 1,011,766 Restricted per grant agreements for local match

Information Technology Department 92,350 90,759 1,590 0


Page 3 of 4

Department and Project

Carryforward


YTDSpent

(6/10/19) Committed CommentsPCI COMPLIANCE A468585 90,759 90,759 0 0Encumbrances 1,590 0 1,590 0

Mayor 57,305 0 7,397 49,908MAYOR'S MENTORING PROGRAM 325 0 0 325MAYOR'S OFFICE ADMIN SUPPORT 55,094 0 5,511 49,583Encumbrances 1,886 0 1,886 0

Non Departmental and Port 7,969,034 99,873 7,293,212 575,949BUS IMPV DIST-NCR 1010-C138410 3,222 0 3,222 0CAO CONTINGENCY 86,535 56,161 30,374 0CHORUS 3,179 805 2,374 0CITY COUNCIL CONTINGENCY 86,282 0 0 86,282CULTL ATS GNT FND 1010-P385310 66,610 0 66,610 0EMPLOYEE RECOGNITION 80,947 0 14,304 66,643FEDERAL LOBBYIST 56,500 2,500 54,000 0GRAFFITI EVIDENCE AND ENF PROG 83,025 0 0 83,025MEASURE FF EDUCATION 240,000 0 0 240,000NATIONAL NIGHT OUT 4,420 0 4,420 0PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING 120,835 0 120,835 0STATE LOBBYIST 37,500 0 37,500 0SVCS SXLY EXPL CHILDREN 100,000 0 0 100,000Encumbrances 6,999,981 40,407 6,959,574 0

Oakland Parks and Recreation Department 296,682 25,000 118,044 153,638OPR GRANTS-SCHOLAR LOW INC YTH 56,755 0 0 56,755RAIDERS SURCHARGE 26,396 0 0 26,396Encumbrances 44,977 0 44,977 0West Oakland Youth Center/Mentoring 168,554 25,000 73,067 70,487

Oakland Public Library Department 29,907 0 28,319 1,588OPL POPUP MOBILE VEHICLE ACQ 2,561 0 973 1,588Encumbrances 27,346 0 27,346 0

Oakland Public Works Department 1,494,583 40,184 334,484 1,119,916ASTRO PARK TOT LOT IMPROV 1,219 0 0 1,219ENHANCED PARK MAINTENANCE 37,188 37,188 0 0MOSSWOOD REBUILD 1,152,760 0 47,970 1,104,790 Insurance proceeds for Mosswood rebuildOPL POPUP MOBILE VEHICLE ACQ 5,450 0 0 5,450PAYGO D2 MADISN SQ PORTA POTTY 5,156 0 0 5,156Encumbrances 280,459 0 280,459 0


Page 4 of 4

Department and ProjectCarryforward


YTDSpent

(6/10/19) Committed CommentsADA Projects 12,351 2,996 6,054 3,301

Planning and Building Department 194,623 0 0 194,623PERTS TECHNOLOGY ENHANCEMENT (5,064) 0 0 (5,064)Cannabis 199,687 0 0 199,687 Plan check engineering

Police Commission 182,475 0 804 181,672CPRB-INVESTIGATIONS 182,031 0 359 181,672Encumbrances 444 0 444 0

Police Department 5,611,424 665,987 2,434,151 2,511,286COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR - RACIAL 250,000 0 0 250,000COMPLIANCE DIRECTOR CONTRACT 88,711 0 88,711 0DEEMED APPROVED 474,144 177,350 296,794 0DOJ FINGERPRINT FEE TRUST 50,970 0 1,920 49,050EXTRA LEGAL LOAD 7,463 0 7,463 0MISC GRANT HONOR GUARD 12,253 0 0 12,253OPD WELLNESS UNIT 449,867 35,722 26,470 387,674PROPERTY AUCTION REVENUE 11,304 50 957 10,296REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE 242,832 0 0 242,832SHOTSPOTTER 44,246 0 31,130 13,116SHOTSPOTTER PHASES II - III 50,877 0 0 50,877TASER PROJECT 1,030 1,009 0 21Encumbrances 800,814 13 800,801 0Police Academies 1,541,761 413,873 1,127,887 0COPS Grants - Matching Funds 1,585,153 37,969 52,016 1,495,168 Restricted per grant agreements for local match

Public Ethics Commission 12,142 0 12,142 0Encumbrances 12,142 0 12,142 0

Race and Equity Department 43,266 21,878 461 20,927RACE & EQUITY-FY15-17 42,806 21,878 0 20,927Encumbrances 461 0 461 0

Grand Total 33,037,966 2,528,965 18,858,182 11,650,819

MEMORANDUM


PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to transmit to the full City Council and public, responses to questions raised by City Councilmembers related to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-21 Proposed Biennial Budget. To the extent additional information becomes available on any of the responses below, updates will be provided. QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES #7 1) The Formulas And Source Data Used To Calculate The Budget Projections For The

Real Estate Transfer Tax And Property Tax (Kaplan) Please see the supplemental report dated June 20, 2019, titled, “Informational Report Regarding General Purpose Fund Forecasted Revenues And The Reasons To Not Increase Revenues Beyond Third Quarter Projections.”

2) Fiscal Year 2018-19 Third Quarter Revenue And Expenditure Actuals For Funds In The Vehicle Registration Fee and Alameda County Transportation Measure BB And B Funds (Kaplan) The tables on the following page show the third quarter revenue and expenditure projections for Funds 2211, 2215, and 2216.



($ in millions)

MEASURE B: LOCAL STREETS & ROADS (2211)FY 2018-19

Adjusted Budget

FY 2018-19Q3 Projected

FYE

Year-End Over / Under

Budget

Beginning Fund Balance - Audited 10,856,383$ 10,856,383$

Revenue 17,687,891$ 17,687,891$ —$

Expenditures 17,687,891$ 19,900,855$ 2,212,964$

Estimated Current Year Surplus/(Shortfall) —$ (2,212,964)$ 2,212,964$

Subtotal Fund Balance 10,856,383$ 8,643,419$

Budgeted Amounts Carried Forw ard (CF) to FY 2018-19 (3,950,117)$ (3,950,117)$ Budgeted use of Fund Balance (6,490,519)$ (6,490,519)$

Estimated Ending Fund Balance 415,747$ (1,797,217)$

Use of Fund Balance in FY 2018-19:

MEASURE F: VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEE (2215)FY 2018-19

Adjusted Budget


FYE


Budget

Beginning Fund Balance - Audited 1,825,889$ 1,825,889$

Revenue 2,546,283$ 1,768,805$ (777,478)$

Expenditures 2,546,283$ 2,428,323$ 117,960$

Estimated Current Year Surplus/(Shortfall) —$ (659,518)$ (659,518)$

Subtotal Fund Balance 1,825,889$ 1,166,372$

Budgeted Amounts Carried Forw ard (CF) to FY 2018-19 (532,001)$ (532,001)$

Estimated Ending Fund Balance 1,293,888$ 634,370$

($ in millions)

Use of Fund Balance in FY 2018-19:

MEASURE BB: ACTC (2216)FY 2018-19

Adjusted Budget


FYE


Budget

Beginning Fund Balance - Audited 5,829,065$ 5,829,065$ Revenue 16,172,336$ 15,369,119$ (803,217)$ Expenditures 16,172,336$ 17,591,304$ (1,418,968)$ Estimated Current Year Surplus/(Shortfall) —$ (2,222,185)$ (2,222,185)$ Subtotal Cash Balance 5,829,065$ 3,606,879$

Budgeted Amounts Carried Forw ard (CF) to FY 2018-19 (7,155,979)$ (7,155,979)$ Budgeted use of Fund Balance (2,609,877)$ (2,609,877)$

Estimated Ending Fund Balance (3,936,792)$ (6,158,977)$

($ in millions)

Use of Cash Balance in FY 2018-19:


3) The Amount Of The Percent Increase In Healthcare Premiums That Was Used For The Budget Projections In The Fiscal Year 2010-21 Proposed Budget (Kaplan)

The Finance Department calculates and publishes fringe benefit rates through Administrative Instruction 1303 (Fringe Benefit and Organizational Overhead Rates). These rates are calculated in accordance with Code of Federal Regulation (CF) Title II, Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) Appendix V & VII. The table below shows the City’s health fringe rate for FY 2018-19 (current year) and as proposed in the FY 2019-21 budget for civilian employees (non-sworn). FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 Health Fringe Rate 21.32% 20.25% 20.50% Annual % Increase / (Decrease) -- (5.02%) 1.23%

Adjusting healthcare fringe benefits involves examining several sources of information, such as anticipated healthcare premium adjustment data for the upcoming calendar year. The City pays 100% of the monthly premium for all employees at all coverage levels (1 party, 2 party, family). For the 2020 plan year, this reflects a City paid contribution of $1,998 per month or $23,976 per year per employee.

4) We understand that healthcare premiums are budgeted as a % of salary even though

that is not their actual cost. Can you please explain the actual amount of cost of the premiums, including how that varies from budgeted cost? Can you please let us know what components of fringe actually cost a % salary versus which components of fringe don’t? (Kalb)

Please see response to Question 5 above. All of the fringe benefits are expressed as a percentage of pay in accordance with Uniform Guidelines.


Respectfully submitted, /s/

KATANO KASAINE Director of Finance

city of oakland budget advisory commission · 7/10/2019 · notice is hereby given that a meeting...

Documents